Active Audiences and Social Discussion

Active audiences and social discussion
on the digital public sphere.

Review article
Pere Masip; Carlos Ruiz-Caballero; Jaume Suau
Nota: Este artículo se puede leer en español en:

http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2019/mar/02_es.pdf
How to cite this article:

Masip, Pere; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Suau, Jaume (2019). “Active audiences and social discussion on the digital
public sphere. Review article”. El profesional de la información, v. 28, n. 2, e280204.
https://doi.org//10.3145/epi.2019.mar.04
Article received on January 29, 2019
Approved on February 18, 2019
Pere Masip * Carlos Ruiz-Caballero

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8231-0824 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1395-2145
Universitat Ramon Llull Universitat Ramon Llull
Facultat de Comunicació i Relacions Facultat de Comunicació i Relacions
Internacionals Blanquerna Internacionals Blanquerna
Pl. Joan Coromines, s/n. Pl. Joan Coromines, s/n.
08001 Barcelona, Spain 08001 Barcelona, Spain
[email protected] [email protected]
Jaume Suau
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4480-4441
Universitat Ramon Llull
Facultat de Comunicació i Relacions
Internacionals Blanquerna
Pl. Joan Coromines, s/n.
08001 Barcelona, Spain
[email protected]
Abstract
In little over a decade, essential concepts in research on communication have become zombie concepts (Beck & Willms,
2004) and are no longer effective for understanding the profound transformation that has taken place with the arrival
of the internet. Public sphere, deliberation, audiences, public... the academic literature has oscillated between an initial
optimism about the potential for strengthening democracy of communication technologies to a critical scepticism. This
text reviews the academic literature with regard to the forms of social deliberation adopted in the context of the media
and social networks and its impact on the public sphere.
Keywords
Active audiences; Media; Deliberation; Digital public sphere; Participation; Comments; News sharing.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by Ministerio de Ecomomía y Competitividad (Spain) under Grant CSO2015-64955-C4-
1-R (Mineco/Feder).
e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 1

1. Introduction
In the past, audiences were considered to be those citizens who read the newspaper in a cafe, listened to the radio on
the way to work or watched television with their family in the lounge at the end of the day. Media consumption could ea-
sily be associated with a particular time and space, often having a certain sense of ritual (Couldry, 2003; Sparks; Tulloch,
2000). Today, the situation is very different. The new nature of audiences is diffuse, but at the same time connected to
the day-to-day, which is precisely one of the main features of what Schroder et al. call the multifaceted nature of audien-
ces (Schroder et al., 2003). However, the new media ecosystem has also brought another change or a new dimension
with regard to the nature of audiences. According to Livingstone,
“(…) today’s media environment is reshaping the opportunity structures by which people (as audiences and as
mediated publics) can participate in an increasingly mediatized society” (Livingstone, 2013, p. 24).
Without going into detail yet on the question of whether or not these opportunities for participation are important for
democracy, the fact is that a large number of citizens are taking advantage of them. Practices such as commenting, sha-
ring and creating, which are available in any time and space, have become increasingly widespread and are all designed
to connect users to each other and/or to media content (Dahlgren, 2013; Jenkins; Ford; Green 2013; Press; Williams,
2010). This new participatory dimension of the nature of audiences adds a new social or relational component that did
not appear in previous definitions of audiences (Livingstone, 2013). Therefore, the concept of ‘audience’ develops cha-
racteristics previously attributed to the concept of ‘public’.
Audiences, even when conceptualised as active in interpreting texts and messages from the media, have traditionally
been understood with regard to their alleged individual and non-deliberative nature (Butsch, 2008) and were not invol-
ved in debates on public affairs. Audiences, therefore, were differentiated from the traditional definition of ‘public’, a
concept always associated with deliberation and of a relational nature. As Dahlgren argues,
“atomized individuals, consuming media in their homes, do not comprise a public” (Dahlgren, 2005, p. 149).
However, this distinction between unthinking
and disconnected audiences and thinking and
participatory publics may be losing validity due
to social changes and changes in the media
ecosystem (Livingstone, 2005). The idea of the
public has always been associated with the me-
dia. Habermas (1989) and Tarde (1969) viewed
the media (essentially, the press) as sources that
provided citizens with information on public
affairs. Publics developed in other spaces for
participation and meeting, such as cafes, social
clubs or squares, where citizens came together,
had discussions and exchanged views that led to
the formulation of public opinion (Dewey, 1946;
Habermas, 1989). As a result, publics and au-
diences have always been understood as oppo-
site concepts, separated in space and time. Ne-
vertheless, in the new media ecosystem where
the media are an essential part of day-to-day life
and audiences are becoming more relational and participatory, this traditional distinction between public and audience
becomes blurred, as does the separation of public and private space (Papacharissi, 2010).
As a number of authors have pointed out, the current changing media scene is characterised by uncertainty:
“No longer have we clear distinctions between production and reception, between mass and interpersonal com-
munication, or between hitherto distinct forms of media (print, image, music, broadcasting and games, etc.)”
(Press; Livingstone, 2006).
The internet is precisely the medium that best represents
all these uncertainties and most dramatically highlights In the new media ecosystem where the
the inadequacy of previously important concepts to exp- media are an essential part of day-to-day
lain the reality of the media sphere (Williams; Delli-Car- life and audiences are becoming more
pini, 2011).
relational and participatory, this tradi-
Of all the concepts and theories that have had to be re- tional distinction between public and
vised in recent years, one of the most prominent is that
audience becomes blurred, as does the
of the audience. The term active audiences began to be
used precisely in order to distinguish the new nature of separation of public and private space

Active audiences and social discussion on the digital public sphere. Review article
the audience (Bruns; Highfield,

2016). Audiences started to be
perceived not only as active in the
interpretation of journalistic texts
and messages but also as active
in the sense of production, dis-
semination of content and public
debate in online environments
(Suau, 2015). Concepts such as
prosumer (Bruns, 2008b) or that
of UGC or user-generated content
(Thurman, 2008; Singer et al.,
2011) identified this new audience
perfectly, at the same time a con-
sumer and producer of content,
closely connected to the populari-
News comment section of The New York Times
ty of the first forms of online par-
https://goo.gl/DVPEYx
ticipation: blogs, wikis and forums.
With regard to new terminology,
people started to talk about the citizen journalist, and the ease with which users can produce, publish and comment on
content. This opened new avenues for discussing the historic hegemony of the traditional media and professionals in the
field of journalism (Nerone, 2009; Nip, 2006; Gilmor, 2004). However, in practice, citizen journalism was shown to have
limitations and little significance in terms of volume or audience.
Inasmuch as the Internet evolves and new participatory practices develop in the world of journalism and the media,
the optimistic discourse linked to the democratisation of information and the greater freedom of citizens predominates
(Curran et al., 2012). Often, it is in relation to the concept of the public sphere that the potentially democratising role
of active audiences is highlighted (Papacharissi, 2010). However, there have been frequent observations that the early
research on active audiences was perhaps over-optimistic (Borger et al., 2013; Lewis; Molyneux, 2018; Quandt, 2018).
This realism was the result of multiple empirical studies, which repositioned the role of the active audience and its ability
of deliberation in the new public sphere, particularly in two areas:
- comments on the news, and
- the conversation opened up by the expansion of social networks.
Once the low quality of participation had been identified, some studies looked at the facilitating conditions this parti-
cipation would need to have in order to improve the debate in the public sphere and strengthen democracy, because
potentially this was possible (Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011). That is, ultimately, the aim of this article, which reviews the
academic literature on what can be called digital discussion, which extends through comments on the news and in social
networks and that adopts new complementary forms that are strongly emerging, such as the sharing of information con-
tent that feeds conversation. However, firstly we need to take another look at a central concept that connects audience,
information and democracy: the public sphere.
The aim is to establish how the emergence of the in-
ternet impacts on Habermas’ traditional concept of the Audiences started to be perceived not
public sphere and fragments it and, above all, to unders- only as active in the interpretation of
tand the transformations it has undergone. And whe-
journalistic texts and messages but also
ther or not these transformations enable the function
of forming public opinion, the connecting link between as active in the sense of production, dis-
public sphere and democracy, to continue to be feasible. semination of content and public debate
To do so, we will review the academic literature in recent in online environments
years, noting that this review is inevitably influenced by
our selection criteria and our own judgment.
2. Internet and the transformation of the public sphere

The sociologist Ulrich Beck drew attention to the use by the social sciences of zombie concepts: forms of analysis in-
herited from the past which are no longer effective for understanding today’s world (Beck; Willms, 2004; Rutherford,
2003). We are witnessing another structural transformation of the public sphere (Bruns; Highfield, 2015) driven by the
explosion of the internet. For some authors, it follows the Habermasian concept of a unified public sphere where the
media exercise a hegemonic role, have mass audiences and act as a space in which the entire public debate plays out
is “a convenient fantasy” (Hartley; Green, 2006, p. 347). Other authors believe that this structural change is so radical
that perhaps we should consider abandoning the concept (Webster, 2013). A third approach seeks to keep the concept

alive, but no longer regarding it a single approach and admitting that, at present, the public sphere is comprised of many
different spaces (Dalhgren, 2005). We clearly dealing with a zombie concept: it is dead but still alive.
New words have emerged to describe the new existence of the public sphere on the internet: ‘digital’, ‘virtual’, ‘online.’
All these terms share the vision of a communication sphere provided or supported by online social media. In these
spaces, participation is open and is available free of charge to all those who are interested, who can discuss matters of
common interest through a process that is visible to all (Schäfer, 2015). One of the characteristics which describes this
new public sphere is its fragmentation (Galston, 2003). This fragmentation affects both the forums where discussions
between citizens can potentially take place and the public.
Bruns and Highfield (2015) provide a detailed and interesting categorisation of the fragmentation. Firstly, there is a
wide-ranging divergence of publics. For example, Dahlgren (2009), and Webster (2013) both refer to the political public
sphere, while Hartley and Green (2006) describe a cultural public sphere. Obviously, the range is far wider. Another di-
vision is technology, where the public is defined by its main medium of communication. For instance, the Twittersphere
or the blogosphere have become part of standard language. Along these lines, for example, Benkler (2006) develops the
idea of a “networked public sphere”. A third fragmentation would be the result of the establishment of temporary publics
that emerge and are grouped around a particular theme.
This is what a number of scholars call public sphericules The emergence of the internet impacts
(Gitlin, 1998; Cunningham, 2001; Bruns, 2008a). These
on Habermas’ traditional concept of the
authors take the view that the reduced size of the sphe-
re and the shared interest in a subject may improve the public sphere
quality of the deliberation. Another division relates to
public issues, spaces for debate on specific topics between all those who are interested. They tend to be about specific
events, closely linked to immediacy, in a particular time-frame and fast-moving, which eventually fade away. The latter
two types are particularly noteworthy, because they can define the type of spheres that welcome comments on news
from readers, as we will see later when we discuss this mode of participation. Networked public sphere would be the
correct name for the public subspheres enabled by social networks.
In this new geography of the public sphere, we must be aware of a fuzzy boundary, which affects what is regarded as
public, because users move back and forth between personal and public topics. Thus, for example, Schmidt (2014) des-
cribes groups of Facebook friends or Twitter followers as ego-centric networks. These are referred to as personal publics.
Papacharissi (2010) goes further to talk about the private sphere, where users engage in “privately public conversations”
because they are not conducted behind closed doors nor in full view of the public. This is, broadly speaking, the new
landscape replacing the old public sphere. Unlike the old sphere, where private individuals expressed views on public
affairs, the new public spheres swamp us with messages that can be read in public but only talk to us about personal
issues. As opposed to a rational public sphere put forward by Habermas (1989), we find, on that fuzzy boundary, what
Papacharissi (2015a) refers to as affective publics. As Bruns and Highfield (2015) state, the emergence of the internet
has mixed and merged the individual public spheres that may exist within an increasingly global network with incessant
flows of information.
We have seen the types of forums and types of publics that coexist nowadays in the public sphere. We will now examine
at their constituent parts. Dahlgren (2005) sets out three constituent dimensions of the public sphere:
- The first is its structural dimension, which relates to its formal institutional features: organisation, financial policy, ow-
nership, control and regulation of the media, as well as the legal framework defining the freedom of communication.
- The second dimension is the representational one and refers to the output of the media, and includes impartiality,
accuracy,
- The third dimension is that of interaction. Dahlgren highlights the importance of this dimension and recalls that, both
for Habermas and Dewey, publics exist as a process of discursive interaction. For Dalhgren, interaction consists of two
aspects. Firstly, it has to do with the citizens’ encounters with the media; secondly, the interaction between citizens
themselves. On the Internet, civic interaction has taken a major historical step by going online.
There is no doubt that the internet represents an exponential leap in these two types of interaction, both in the potential
contacts with the online media and with social networks and all the content distribution platforms, whether for news
or entertainment. In addition, it enables types of interaction between citizens that were unimaginable until relatively
recently, because it not only enables one-to-one relationships, but also one-to-many, in what Castells (2009) describes
as mass self-comunication. This technological option introduces another qualitative element, namely the emergence of
other voices that can have an influence and compete with the stories of professional journalists through the content
generated by users.
Dalhgren (2005) makes an important warning. The public sphere is not in itself a guarantee of democracy. In the virtual
public sphere, there is undoubtedly all sorts of political information and many discussions are taking place, but there
must be a structural connection between these communication spaces and the decision-making processes. Otherwise, it
may degenerate into a chaotic populism. There needs to be some form of evidence that political conversations between
citizens have some influence, some impact. This aspect can be generalised to all of the active audience participation

through the mechanisms available to them, for example, digital newspapers. Because these mechanisms should not just
be a way of attracting customers, without any impact in the media themselves. The audience, in this sense, must have
someone who will listen to it. Dalhgren is right when he warns that, otherwise, the citizen may disengage and become
cynical.
Dahlberg (2005) also details the conditions for a public sphere. Firstly he clarifies that, when Habermas talks of the pu-
blic sphere, he is not talking about a specific public, but the whole range of complex networks of different, overlapping
publics built up through the critical discourses of individuals, groups, civic associations, social movements and media
organisations. What Dahlberg sets out to synthesise are the requirements of an idealised form of public reasoning.
- The first condition is the thematisation and reasoned critique of the validity of problematic claims, which involves the
adoption of reasoned opinions.
- The second condition is reflexivity, which implies that the speakers critically examine their values, assumptions and
interests in the light of the reasons and statements of others. It also implies that they are willing to change their point
of view.
- Thirdly, Dahlberg speaks of ideal role taking. In other words, participants put themselves in the position of all those
potentially affected, considering the situation from other perspectives, which involves impartiality and respectful lis-
tening.
- Sincerity is the fourth premise. Participants must be honest and alert to deception or self-deception.
- It is also necessary to ensure a formal and discursive equality, where a line of argument is open to all participants
affected by the claim under consideration. In addition, there can be no coercion involved.
- Finally, it requires autonomy from the State and financial power. The line of argument developed in the public sphere
must be free from the influence of the State or corporate interests.
On the basis of this description, it can be affirmed that,
for the public sphere to contribute to the strengthening The sociologist Ulrich Beck drew atten-
of democracy, the digital discourse that takes place wi- tion to the use by the social sciences of
thin it must take these conditions into consideration
(Barber, 1984). The key criticisms of this concept of the zombie concepts: forms of analysis in-
public sphere point to it being an idealised concept. herited from the past which are no lon-
However, this idealisation is useful in order to critically ger effective for understanding today’s
assess the democratic value of informal day-to-day dis- world
cussions, although the reality can only be observed in
practice.
However, deliberation is only one of the possibilities of the ‘digital democracy’. Dahlberg (2011) talks about four digital
democracy positions.
1) The first position is what he calls liberal-individualist democracy. Digital media allow individuals to obtain the informa-
tion they need to examine political positions and problems and give them the opportunity to record, and subsequently
include their choices (as public opinion) through a variety of means (e-voting, web feedback systems, e-mail, online
polls, etc.). The democratic subject is regarded as a rational individual, self-seeking, a maximiser of instrumental utility,
who knows his/her own best interests. They view citizenship as more of an individual than a collective political activi-
ty, with the right to pursue one’s interests in the marketplace. However, this individual is able to empathise with and
support the needs and rights of others. Democracy is perceived as the sum of individual wishes and the competition
between representatives to obtain the support of these individuals, as a ‘marketplace of ideas’. This approach needs
the free transmission of information to allow the individual to make their strategic calculations and choices. The digital
media are seen as important, because they are seen to operate reasonably independently of centralised controls.
2) The second position is digital deliberative democracy. Here, the digital media extend a deliberative democratic public
sphere of rational communication and formation of public opinion that can hold decision makers to account. Rational
deliberation is also identified as taking place, although in a less ideal form, through the texts and commentaries of citizen
journalists and ‘serious’ commentaries in the media. The democratic subject here is not pre-defined as in the previous
position but develops from rational deliberation. Private individuals are transformed into democratic subjects interested
in the ‘common good’. The result is a critical and informed public opinion that can scrutinise the decision-making proces-
ses. Democracy, here, is based on the search for consensus, rather than on the sum of individual wills. The digital media
and the internet are seen as enablers of this democratic conception.
3) Counter-publics digital democracy is the third position. It emphasises the role of the digital media in the political for-
mation of groups, activism and protest, rather than rational individual action or concerted action after discussion. The
democratic subject here arises through engagement in the formation of groups of activism and protest. This is a more
affective subject, acting in response to a perception of exclusion or injustice. The subject acts in solidarity with others
and the group transcends the individual.

Democracy is based on two assumptions. The first is that any social formation necessarily involves inclusion/exclusion
relationships and associated discursive argument, where the discourse focuses on the meaning that organises social
relationships. The second is that this antagonistic situation creates critical spaces to reflect communicative interaction
which may challenge dominant discourses and redefine the limits of legitimate communication in the public sphere. In
democratic theory, ‘counter-publics’ are associated with critical theory in the public sphere which views deliberative
theory with a degree of sympathy. Although it considers that digital communication technologies support dominant
discourses, they also allow excluded voices to be heard and lead to the formation of ‘counter-publics’ and ‘counter-dis-
courses’. The protests on specific issues normally take place in online and offline spaces at the same time. The digital
media strengthen the voice of the alternative, the marginalised or oppressed groups.
4) Autonomist Marxist digital democracy is the final position. It sees digital communication networks as enablers of
radically democratic politics, i.e. self-organised and inclusive participation that bypasses centralised State and capitalist
systems. They can, therefore, contribute to the achievement of an independent and democratic common good. The de-
cision-making process occurs in a collaborative, decentralised manner. Unlike the three previous positions they are not
taking part in a project to improve liberal democracy, but it is, rather, about a political revolution which aspires to a new
democratic society with a socio-economic agreement based on the common good. This common good is constituted
through a decentralized intelligence, on the internet and open source, a ‘general intellect’’. The subject is an autono-
mous agent, which highlights the difference to working together with others, which is part of the community and yet
not limited to it because it is an individual and group identity at the same time. The digital media are potentially seen as
enablers of this conception of democracy.
It was felt that the four positions described by Dahlberg should be developed in some detail because, if you read them
closely, they latently contain most of the conditions that he himself established for the public sphere. Despite the di-
fferences between the positions, in their characteristics, digital democracy in some manner aspires to the ideal. It is
also true that, following the very
steps of Habermas (1984; 1987) in
his discursive ethics, each and every
one of these conditions can be cha-
racterised to understand the distan-
ce between the ideal and reality.
Let us take, for example, reflexivity,
which, as has been shown, implies
that speakers should critically exa-
mine their values, assumptions, and
interests in the light of the reasons
and statements of others and are
willing to modify their point of view.
In this sense, the Internet presents
the danger of the fragmentation of
audiences in small communities of li-
ke-minded people, who do not come Esquema de burbujas-filtro de Eli Pariser
https://blog.zhdk.ch/aliceschwab/2012/04/19/eli-pariser-beware-online-for-filter-bubbles
into contact with conflicting ideas. As
Schäfer recalls (2015), this identified
risk also has a technological aspect. The algorithms of search engines provide users
with information that is based on criteria that take into account their behaviour
in previous searches, thereby concealing other information. This is what Pariser
(2011) calls filter bubbles. The technology itself also makes it possible, on social
networks or on media websites, for users to decide who to follow or what content
they want to receive. The result is the echo chambers effect: Not only are cer-
tain points of view not questioned, but the same points of view are repeated and
reinforced in online communities (Sunstein, 2001; 2009); and divergent ideas are
thrown out, depriving citizens of alternative views (Bennett; Iyengar, 2008; Iyen-
gar; Hahn, 2009; Del Vicario et al., 2016). There is a risk of creating solo spheres
where individual action is tightly restricted by partisanship, and the fragmentation
of public debate diminishes the power of citizens and reduces their chances of
receiving information and carrying out political actions (Dahlgren, 2013).
Up to this point, the conclusion would be pessimistic. Above all, taking into ac-
count the arguments of authors like Sunstein (2001, 2009) and Mouffe (2013),
who claim that one of the prerequisites for a healthy democracy is the existence of
spaces that allow citizens to be exposed to different points of view or perceptions.
The problem is not new and it has been addressed in previous decades by the se-

lective exposure theory (Lazarsfeld; Berelson; Gaudet, 1948; Zillmann; Bryant, 1985). The problem re-emerges strongly
because technology has increased audiences’ control in establishing their own patterns of consumption of information
(Brundidge, 2010). Various studies confirm this trend and draw attention to its harmful effects on democratic life (Ben-
nett; Iyengar, 2008; Iyengar; Hahn, 2009; Sunstein, 2001; Galston, 2002) because, among other reasons, it contributes
further to the fragmentation of an already fragmented public sphere. However, this view is questioned by various au-
thors. For example, Curran (2011a; 2011b) highlights the importance of entertainment in shaping individuals’ political
values due to the difficulty of applying mechanisms of selective exposure in this format. This difficulty also exists in news
formats, because they do not always provide partisan information (Webster, 2007). The theory of selective exposure has
become more relativised lately because the hybrid media system leads to a cross-media pattern of consumption which
makes it difficult to impose a completely selective exposure, even where this is the citizen’s intention (Garrett, 2009;
Holbert et al., 2010; Chadwick, 2013; Schrøder, 2015).
In other words, the reconfiguration of the public sphere
There has been a significant shift in the
itself and technology lead to contact –desired or not-
with other points of view. Some writers hold the view way in which citizens access informa-
that this positive effect of the internet is limited to the tion. Citizens in social networks have
minority of motivated citizens who are interested in po- now become “secondary gatekeepers”,
litics (Tolbert; Mcneal, 2003; Nisbet; Scheufele, 2004). who re-disseminate information and set
There is no doubt that there has been a significant shift
up a social filter that competes with no
in the way in which citizens access information. As noted
by Stelter (2008), citizens in social networks have now longer hegemonic professional filter of
become ‘secondary gatekeepers’ (Singer, 2013; 2014; journalists and the media.
Masip et al., 2015) who re-disseminate information and
set up a social filter that competes with no longer hegemonic professional filter of journalists and the media. Friends
and contacts on social networks share and recommend news (Guallar et al., 2016). Undoubtedly, the affinity between
friends and contacts can increase polarisation, but there are scholars who consider that social networks are creating
environments in which, under certain circumstances, the citizen is accidentally exposed to information and different
points of view, even if they weren’t intentionally looking for it (Brundidge, 2010). Several studies (Mitchell; Page, 2014;
Mitchell; Holcomb; Weisel, 2016; Masip; Suau; Ruiz-Caballero, 2018) confirm this serendipitous exposure means that
the door is kept ajar for pluralism in the consumption of information in the public sphere.
3. The new citizenship

Having discussed the concepts of ‘digital public sphere’ and ‘digital democracy’, it is appropriate to address the concept
of what can be termed the ‘digital citizen’, a new model of citizenship developed by individuals in the democracies of
late modernity (Bennet, 2008; Bennet; Segerberg, 2013). It is a model that is strongly linked to the new communication
technologies and with the participatory dimension of the new environment (Papacharissi, 2010; Dahlgren, 2013; Rainie,
Wellman, 2012). According to Inglehart (1997), behind the rhetoric and intellectual debates of some postmodernist
authors such as Derrida, Baudrillard or Lyotard,
“an empirically demonstrable cultural shift is taking place” (Inglehart, 1997, p. 22).
This cultural shift is identified with changes in the value system and lifestyles of individuals in post-industrial societies
and is represented in many different areas, from politics to religion, but also in gender, cultural and sexual trends.
When materialistic values emphasised financial and physical security, individuals tended to defend hierarchical and
bureaucratic organisations, whereas postmodernist societies tend to adopt values that identify more with the con-
cerns of individual self-expression and quality of life. Accordingly, as Inglehart states (1997), postmodern societies are
also characterised by a general decline in hierarchical institutions and rigid social
norms, and by the expansion of the realm of individual choice and mass participa-
tion. Prominent sociologists have reflected on this new concept of self-identity or
self-expression in late modern societies, where individuality takes a leading position
in defining the subject. Giddens (1991), for example, points out the ‘reflexivity’ of
the contemporary self, ever-willing to change and adapt to the conditions of the
continually changing late modern society. On the other hand, Bauman (2000; 2005)
maintains that the ‘liquid’ nature of late modernity implies that the subject strug-
gles to adapt to this changing nature. Rather than the empowered subject found in
Giddens’ theory, for Bauman, individuality and self-expression of the self are cen-
tral, but with a permanent condition of ambivalence and uncertainty. Based on the-
se theories, Dahlgren (2013) calls for a review of the ways in which some definitions
of the ‘civic subject’, formerly embedded in the ‘intimate realm of life’ –such as
gender, sexual orientation, etc.- have become politicised issues, as individuals’ sphe-
res of action and decision have increased, in line with the new social values. As a
result, the boundaries between what is considered public and private are becoming

blurred and, as Keane notes (1991), the public spheres are now also expanding into areas of life which were previously
immune to controversies about power.
In this context, ‘identity politics’ emerge (Melucci, 1996), which replace the former hegemony of collective action as
the main resource for social movements. In addition, this new ‘civic subject’ is not attracted by traditional ideologies (or
‘-isms’) and the traditional forms of participation. But instead of being a politically demobilised, disengaged, or disinte-
rested subject, this citizen is politically interested in ways that are not easily captured by aggregated measures, such as
polls, and has a political appetite that is not satisfied by “mass-produced content” (Papacharissi, 2010).
This transformation of the subject and their interests has an impact on the concept of the public sphere, which has been
fragmented into different micro spheres that develop out of issues that revolve around the self-identification of the
subject. These micro spheres are based on communications and everyday life and develop a mosaic of public spheres of
different sizes, which overlap and interconnect (Keane, 1991). As Fraser (1992) states, many public spheres co-exist and
are formed by counterpublics with different power relationships and represent different groups of self-identification that
react in that way to their exclusion from the dominant public sphere. Dahlgren (2013) points out that the weakness of
these micro spheres is their disconnection from the traditional decision-making processes which govern society. Howe-
ver, it is precisely this disconnection from the traditional that forces the individuals who make up these public spheres,
especially those more connected to politics, to look for alternative channels of expression and dissemination of their
positions and discourses. It is in the context of the new public spaces formed around the new media that subjects dis-
connected from the traditional public sphere can find appropriate channels of expression. The participatory dimension
of this new environment helps to improve individuals’ spheres of action, creating what some authors regard as a possible
new form of citizenship. Various writers have created different concepts to define this new digital citizenship: actualizing
citizen (Bennett, 2008; Bennett; Segerberg, 2013), private sphere (Papacharissi, 2010), solo sphere (Dahlgren, 2013) or
networked individualism (Rainie; Wellman, 2012). Despite the different terms, they all agree on the influence that the
central values of autonomy, control and self-expression of individuals in late modern societies have in relation to the
new communication technologies. This new subject and new technologies affect and shape each other, contributing to
the creation of something new, that is still liquid, mutable and uncertain. These new models of digital citizenship do not
seek to replace the previous traditional conceptualisations of citizenship (Bennet, 2008), but rather they coexist in the
new environment.
Bennet takes the view that the ‘dutiful model of citizenship’, which predominates in many Western democracies, is based
on a view of citizenship that considers participation to be a duty of citizens in a democracy. In addition, this participa-
tion is viewed in relation to organisations such as political parties, trade unions or other broad social organisations that
employ a conventional unidirectional means of communication to mobilise their supporters. On the other hand, the
self actualising model of citizenship implies a shift toward a more personalised and individual participation. Voting and
collective action become less important, while personalised actions such as volunteering or activism take on greater sig-
nificance. The previous view of collective action as a duty is transformed into a greater sense of distrust in the traditional
institutions, and the close social ties that apply mainly with friends and peer groups become more important (Banaji;
Buckingham, 2013).
In her theory of the private sphere, Papacharissi attempts to answer the question as to what extent new ‘civic uses’ of
the Internet convey ‘the political’, through a digital citizenship that she understands as “civic responsibility empowered
by the digital technologies” (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 103). The author accepts that the new environment is creating a new
public space, but argues that this new space does not necessarily lead to a new public sphere, because a virtual space
simply enhances discussion, while a public sphere enhances democracy. The question then becomes one of whether
the new communication technologies could foster democracy, promote rational discourse and also represent equally
the diversity of different public spheres of different social players (Papacharissi, 2002). This new public space is not in
reality completely ‘public’, because what is in the centre of all the interactions is the individual. What is leading to the
new communication technologies is a private sphere of interaction within which individuals engage socially. And they
do so through an environment located in personal and public spaces which, therefore, are interconnected, forming a
networked self (Papacharissi, 2010).
Rainie and Wellman (2012) consider that citizens, rather than joining groups, are becoming increasingly networked as
individuals. In the world of networked individuals, it is the person who is the focus, rather than the family, the work
unit, the neighbourhood, or the social group. However, this does not constitute a world of autonomous and increasingly
isolated individuals, but of networked citizens who have access to a series of private spheres that allows them to have
relationships and move in areas where they can shape their own complex identities depending on their passions, work
interests, hobbies or any other personal characteristic.
Similarly, Papacharissi (2010) holds the view that these individuals are alone but not lonely or isolated. Within the priva-
te sphere, the individual cultivates civic habits and connects with others by sharing the same social, political or cultural
priorities. According to the author, what has changed with the new communication technologies are the spaces that
can convey public action and civic engagement. In the traditional environments, the process of participation in public
issues necessarily implied a transition from the personal, or private, to the political, or public. Within the new media en-

vironment, civic action can be carried out almost anywhere, because citizenship is associated primarily with autonomy,
control, and the ability to question authority, and only at a secondary level with the possibility of collective action.
Dahlgren (2013) generally agrees with Papacharissi’s configuration of the private sphere, although he prefers to call
it the ‘solo sphere’. He believes the new digital citizenship should be understood above all as a new habitus for online
political participation, a new platform for the civic agency. This new habitus coexists with other traditional forms of
citizenship, which actually represent ‘high’ intensities of participation and engagement, while the solo sphere is a place
in which to develop media-centred practices or ‘low’ intensity forms of political engagement. This takes place within a
privatised and networked environment where citizens feel they have more control than in other more contested and
committed public spheres. Social networks are the new habitat of this new digital citizen.
4. The impact of social networks

The popularisation of social networks from 2004 onwards reactivated the academic debate on the impact of technolo-
gies on the public sphere and democracy. As Batorski and Grzywińska note (2018), Twitter and Facebook have been used
in social and political movements such as the Arab Spring in Iran, Turkey and Egypt (Bruns; Highfield; Burgess, 2013; Ha-
ciyakupoglu; Zhang, 2015; Eltantawy; Wiest, 2011); the protests against SOPA and PIPA in the US (Benkler et al., 2015)
and ACTA in Poland (Losey, 2014), and in the Spanish movement of the indignados (Anduiza et al., 2014). Social media
have also played an important role in the election campaigns of democratic societies in both developed and emerging
countries (Diamond; Plattner, 2012; Persily, 2017; Vergeer et al., 2011).
Social networks have a series of specific characteristics which should be taken into account. For Boyd and Ellison (2007),
they have three technical particularities.
- Firstly they allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system.
- Secondly, they enable users to draw up a list of other users with whom they share a connection.
- Thirdly, they can look at and search through their list of connections and those made by others within the system.
Boyd, on the other hand, identifies four elements that help to establish a public communication between its users: lists
of friends, tools for public comments, profiles and updates based on sequences (Boyd, 2007). This is a set of features
that fit with the new digital citizen described above, and a fragmented world of topics and audiences. Several studies
have found that political discussions take place in groups of like-minded users, and that meaningful discussions are
limited (Sujin; Ji-Young; Woo, 2012; Himelboim et al., 2013; Yardi; Boyd, 2010). Other studies have found evidence of
the existence of echo chambers or filter bubbles on Facebook (Robertson et al., 2010; Quattrociocchi; Scala; Sunstein,
2016), and some authors have concluded that individuals very probably exhibit the same behaviour as their friends due
to homophily rather than as a result of peer influence (Bakshy et al., 2015). In their study of Facebook, Batorski & Gr-
zywińska (2018) differentiate two types of communication between users of social networks. The first takes place within
networks of friends (semi-private), and the second takes place, in the case of Facebook, on Facebook pages (public). The
authors conclude that only a small fraction of Facebook users are active in public political discussions, although they do
not view this as due to the configuration of Facebook as a communicative space, but the fact that users prefer to discuss
political issues in their private networks of friends and that the main use of Facebook is for entertainment. They also
state that the online public on Facebook is fragmented and clustered into homogeneous groups, thus supporting the
hypothesis on echo chambers. However, other studies find that the level of filter bubbles reported between Facebook
users is low (Bechmann; Nielbo, 2018) and that the incidental news exposure of internet users leads them to access
heterogeneous news sources, reducing the effect of selective exposure (Fletcher; Nielsen, 2018; Masip; Suau; Ruiz-Ca-
ballero, 2018; Flaxman et al., 2016; Messing; Westwood, 2014).
Brenne (2016) considers that social media can encourage civic engagement in nuanced ways but fail as a public sphere.
They fail because continuous surveillance and examination (Foucault, 1977) undermine public opinion. This surveillance,
unlike Foucault’s panopticon thesis, operates on social networks through desired visibility and the threat of invisibility.
This topic is not closed and, in this sense, further studies are required that provide more evidence on the exposure of
individuals to information on social networks and, above all, their effect on the formation of their opinion. Perhaps there
is a lack of perspective for reaching definitive conclusions on this important aspect of the formation of opinion in the
public sphere(s).
Before drawing this academic reflection on the transformation of the public sphere to a close, another fundamental is-
sue must be addressed, which involves another type of fragmentation: that of attention. Because the media compete for
the attention of users, and users for the attention of other users. Attention is a limited resource, and in the new media
environment has to deal with an ever-increasing number of sources of information, which has led to an ‘economy of at-
tention’ (Webster, 2011; Davenport; Beck, 2001). Very few issues, people, or groups command the public’s attention or
the policy agenda for long (Thrall et al., 2008). But this ability to capture the attention is also a skill of the users of social
networks, who have added the logic of trending (Van-Dijk; Poell, 2013). According to Webster and Ksiazek (2012), the
most obvious cause of this fragmentation is the constant growth in the number of media and products that are compe-
ting for public attention, with the emergence of the internet as a key factor. They believe that, unfortunately, the supply
of public attention is limited and, given the endless number of demands, scarce. For this reason, many authors have

characterised the era of information as an ‘economy of

Habermas believes that they open up
attention’, because attracting an audience is a prerequi-
site for achieving economic, social or political objectives new possibilities for organising activi-
(Davenport; Beck, 2001; Goldhaber, 1997; Lanham, ties and for large-scale mobilisations of
2006; Webster, 2010). This is the logic of the hybrid me- widely scattered individuals. However,
dia system and, as it is applied constantly, fragments the these individuals continue to depend
audience time and time again.
on their relationship with the real deci-
The issue of attention concerns Habermas. He considers sion-making processes that take place
that the web itself does not produce a public sphere be- outside the virtual space
cause its structure is not suited to attracting the atten-
tion of a public of scattered citizens who form opinions
simultaneously on the same problems, and whose contributions have neither been scrutinised nor filtered by experts
(Jeffries, 2016). In terms of the social networks, Habermas believes that they open up new possibilities for organising ac-
tivities and for large-scale mobilisations of widely scattered individuals. However, these individuals continue to depend
on their relationship with the real decision-making processes that take place outside the virtual space (Jeffries, 2016).
The German philosopher believes that the traditional public sphere arose from the fact that the public’s attention was
focused on a number of important political issues that needed to be regulated. On the contrary, the internet actually
“distracts and dispels” that attention (Schwering, 2014). Thus the internet becomes a plethora of “digital noises” where
there are countless communities that are actually scattered communicative archipelagos. What the online communica-
tion spaces lack, according to Habermas, is an inclusive bond,
“the inclusive force of a public sphere highlighting what things are actually important.” (Schwering, 2014).
For this reason, he believes that the capabilities of good tradi-
tional journalism are imperative. Jeffries (2016) explains that,
when he interviewed him, Habermas was concerned about
the risk of obsolescence of the newspapers due to the Inter-
net boom. He was worried because the national press, which
had acted until then as the backbone of democratic discour-
se, was in danger since nobody had found a financially viable
solution to guarantee the survival of the most important na-
tional newspapers on the internet. Without naming it Haber-
mas raises the issue of disintermediation. As stated by Fisher
(2017), politicians are increasing their use of social media to
communicate directly with voters and, on the other side, in-
ternet users are equally keen to consume information directly
from politicians or their parties, without it being filtered or
edited by news professionals. This possibility of being able
to reach the audience without the mediation of the media
erodes one of the essential functions of the press in a demo-
cracy: that of the ‘watchdog’ (Fisher et al., 2019; Broersma;
Graham, 2013). Let us take as an example president Donald
Trump’s use of Twitter, who categorises news stories publi-
shed by the media who are critical of his management as ‘fake
news’. Tweet of Donald Trump attacking the media that criticize him
In addition, disintermediation makes it possible for false news to thrive, because information can travel from the pro-
ducer of the content to the audience without any filter (Cooke, 2018). This aspect of disintermediation is important
because, as Dahlgren states (2005), to be considered public from the point of view of the public sphere, there must be
a process of discursive interaction. He considers that this interaction consists of two aspects. The first is the citizens’
encounters with the media – the communicative processes of making sense, interpreting, and using the output. The se-
cond aspect of interaction is that between citizens themselves, which can include anything from conversations between
two people to large meetings. Disintermediation directly affects the first aspect, leaving the information that circulates
without an interpretive framework or, in other words, leading to any interpretation.
This may be lacking in perspective and more empirical studies may be required. The real impact of the press on the pu-
blic sphere could not be envisaged to its full extent until two centuries later. In any case, Habermas’s perspective must
be re-examined. In his approach there is an inescapable question: that of rational deliberation. Dahlgren (2005) notes
two basic conceptual difficulties in Habermas’ vision of discursive rationalism. The first is that, in his understanding,
the rationalist bias tends to discount a wide array of communicative modes that can be of importance for democracy,
including the affective, the poetic, the humorous or the ironic. The second is that adherence to the perspective of deli-
berative democracy risks downplaying relations of power that are built into communicative situations. For this reason,
Dalhgren proposes to address the political discussion not only in terms of their rational communicative qualities, but

also through his notion of civic culture (Dalhgren, 2000a; 2000b; 2003). Its most fundamental practice is civic interaction,
and discussion. From this vantage point, discussion may not always take the form of Habermasian deliberation, because
through participation, people are exploring new ways of being citizens and doing politics, such as the sharing of infor-
mation. However, Dalhgren recognises that discussion may take the form of deliberation and that talk among citizens is
the catalyst for the civic cultures that are fueling this engagement. Calhoun’s observation (1992) is of interest, when he
criticises the fact that to affirm that there are many public spheres leaves us disoriented in the search for a new term
to describe communicative relationships between them.
He suggests that it might be more productive to think of
the public sphere as involving a field of discursive con- The possibility of being able to reach the
nections. Despite all the criticisms of the Habermas con- audience without the mediation of the
cept of public opinion, discourse and deliberation they media erodes one of the essential func-
are still, to some extent, present in the reflections on the tions of the press in a democracy: that of
public sphere in the internet age. Because, as Calhoun the ‘watchdog’
states (1992), a public sphere appropriate for a demo-
cratic policy depends both upon the quality of discourse
and the quantity of participation. In the words of Habermas himself (2006), must democracy have an epistemic dimen-
sion? If the answer is yes, the public sphere must somehow be a ‘space of reasons’, where there is at least some inten-
tion to have a discussion and listen with respect to others’ points of view. And the digital media have a responsibility to
provide the conditions to make that possible when they themselves become public spheres/sphericules. In this case, for
example, for readers’ comments on the news. A minimally rational deliberation is possible, as has been demonstrated
in several studies (Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011). Habermas buried his concept of the public sphere with his own hands,
but the concept is still alive. Its own critics breathe life into it, constantly. Perhaps it is because, despite everything, de-
mocracy needs a citizen with a minimal epistemological dimension. Let us then examine the digital deliberation that is
conveyed through the comments on news and in social networks and if it displays this dimension in any way.
5. Digital deliberation: from Habermas to Zuckerberg

Posting comments on the news is one of the most popular forms of user participation generated by the most popular
online media (Graham; Wright, 2015; Reich, 2011; Springer, 2014; Weber, 2014; Stroud et al., 2014; Ziegele, 2016).
Although, as shall be discussed below, some media outlets have excluded or limited their use, they are still the most
widespread form of participation (Santana, 2011; Suau; Masip, 2014; Suau, 2015). However, in a broad sense, it can be
seen that the deliberative function of comments has been moved to other digital spaces, particularly Facebook (Su et
al., 2018; Rowe, 2015) and Twitter (Boyd; Golder; Lotan 2010), and more recently to closed spaces such as messaging
apps (Goh et al., 2017).
Just over ten years ago, the media discovered the possibilities that participation offered them for engaging the audience
and potentially bringing it into the productive process, especially as a source. Much of the research carried out during
the last decade has focused on the study of the impact of the comments (Singer, 2010), social networks (Hermida, 2010;
2013; Hermida; Lewis; Zamith, 2014; Broersma; Graham, 2013), the UGC (Manosevitch; Tenenboim, 2017; Naab; Sehl,
2017), journalistic routines or the role of citizens as disseminators of journalistic information (Coddington; Holton, 2014;
Vos; Heinderyckx, 2015; Guallar et al., 2016). In general, journalists have shown little interest in interacting with the
audience (Herrera-Damas; Hermida, 2014) and have used participatory mechanisms to promote their own work or that
of the organisation they work for (Vis, 2013; Armstrong; Gao, 2010; Lasorsa; Lewis; Holton, 2012; Russell et al., 2014;
Chorley, Mottershead, 2016; Malik; Pfeffer, 2016).
As mentioned above, conversation and exchange
of views on public affairs are a central element in
democracies (Dewey, 1946). The existence of spa-
ces to exchange views and the richness of these
conversations illustrate the quality of democracy.
Steiner sums it up when he states:
“Europe is made up of cafés” and that “the
café is a place for assignation and conspi-
racy, for intellectual debate and gossip, for
the flâneur and the poet or metaphysician
and his notebook. It is open to all, yet it is
also a club, a freemasonry of political or
artistic-literary recognition and program-
matic presence” (Steiner, 2004, p. 17).
Two hundred years after the appearance of these
cafés which Steiner describes, our attention is tur-
ned to the internet, Web 2.0 and social networ- Café Procope, Paris

ks, which raises the question: Are they the cafés of the In the words of Habermas himself
21st century? The academic studies that have sought to
(2006), must democracy have an episte-
provide an answer to that question are reviewed below,
especially those that have considered that the spaces mic dimension? If the answer is yes, the
provided by the media for comments, and subsequently public sphere must somehow be a ‘space
social networks, could exercise play that role of a public of reasons’, where there is at least some
agora. intention to have a discussion and listen
A good proportion of the initial academic work on par- with respect to others’ points of view.
ticipation through the media assumed that the internet
and its interactive capacity would bring about a rejuvenation of democracy. This approach finds its roots in the liberal
thinkers of the 19th century and in the normative concept of journalism (Wahl-Jorgensen; Hanitzsch, 2009; Kovach;
Rosenstiel, 2001). Borger et al., (2013) found that exaggerated optimism about the potential for democratisation is alre-
ady flourishing in the early work on participatory journalism and interactivity (Deuze, 2001; Massey; Levy, 1999; Singer,
1998; Domingo et al., 2008; O’Sullivan; Heinonen, 2008). However, these studies characterised by optimism, soon gave
way to others which, on the basis of empirical research, showed less enthusiastic results. The Dutch researchers iden-
tified three reasons for disappointment: disappointment with professional journalism’s obduracy, disappointment with
journalism’s economic motives to facilitate participatory journalism and disappointment with news users’ passivity. As
shall be discussed below, a good proportion of this disappointment emerges after analysing the role of comments and
social networks as spaces for debate on current affairs driven by the media.
Initially, comments, and later social networks, offered readers the opportunity to express their views on public issues
and adopt an active attitude that went beyond the traditional passive role assigned to the audience. From a normative
perspective, the spaces for comments, either in the media themselves, or in their respective Facebook pages, have cha-
racteristics that make them potentially favourable environments for deliberative discussion (Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011;
Prochazka; Weber; Schweiger, 2018; Oz; Zheng; Chen, 2018). This deliberative capacity is not only displayed through
making comments, but also through reading the comments (Springer; Engelmann; Pfaffinger, 2015) and, as discussed,
by sharing news, which provides a framework for the conversation (Swart; Peters; Broersma, 2018). Thus, Ruiz-Caballe-
ro et al. (2011) observed how in the British or North American media the spaces for comments constitute spaces of pu-
blic discussion, in which diverse views were welcome, based mainly on arguments and respect between the participants.
These characteristics, however, were not shared by media in other media systems (Ruiz-Caballero, et al., 2011; 2010).
Despite the potential offered by the comments section, some authors remain sceptical, especially with regard to the lack
of respect that characterises some comments and the tendency towards homophily (Santana, 2013; Anderson et al.,
2014; Coe; Kenski; Rains, 2014). To understand this scepticism, we need to go back to the elements that characterise
Habermas’s discourse ethics (1998; 2003) and give validity to discourse: intelligibility, truth, veracity and honesty. For the
German thinker, dialogue is a rational ethical procedure for social construction. However, for dialogue to effectively be
an ethical procedure, it must be previously accepted that all the people involved are considered to be valid interlocutors,
i.e. they recognise each other as people and they are able to understand each other through communication. In this
case, if readers recognise and respect each other
in a dialogue and exchange of points of view, the-
re would be no place for insults or disqualifica-
tions between them, or from the readers towards
other stakeholders related to the news (actors,
people or institutions involved, journalist who has
written the news story, media, etc.).
One of the main concerns about the spaces of
digital deliberation is that they open the door to
incivility. Incivility is an ambiguous concept, open
to multiple interpretations. The Oxford Dictionary
defines it as “rude or unsociable speech or beha-
viour”, but the decision as to what behaviour is
regarded as sociable or unsociable depends on
each individual. Likewise, you can establish de-
grees of severity of rude behaviour. In any case,
incivility brings nothing positive in that it does not
recognise the mutual respect between speakers
(Brooks; Geer, 2007) which as discussed is re-
quired for deliberation. Papacharissi (2004) dis-
tinguishes between impoliteness and incivility,
although both are closely linked. Impoliteness https://firstdraftnews.org/coe-report
refers to behaviour that contradicts the rules of

etiquette, whereas incivility implies a greater degree of severity, in that its presence undermines democracy and in-
dividual freedom. Coe, Kenski & Rains (2014), in their proposal for operationalisation, identify five forms of incivility:
name-calling, aspersion, lying, vulgarity, and pejorative for speech.
Although it is not widespread, impoliteness is present in most conversations1 (Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011; Coe; Kenski;
Rains, 2014). However, it is much more worrying in the presence of incivility. Various studies agree in identifying the ha-
bitual presence of comments that show disagreement with the views of others, denying and disrespecting the legitimacy
of the opposing views (Hwang; Kim; Kim, 2018; Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011), or hate speech against minorities, women
(Edstrom, 2016) or against journalists (Nilsson; Örnebring, 2016).
The behaviour described above is a matter of concern, as it has a negative impact on democratic values and favours
polarisation of opinions (Anderson et al., 2014). Authors like Sunstein (2002; 2017) are especially critical, not only of
the online discussions, but also with other forms of interaction, such as customisation. Sunstein warns that the internet
results in a substantial reduction in the interactions between citizens, thereby reducing diversity and pluralism and con-
sequently a homogenisation from the point of view of interest and opinions, i.e. the echo-chambers discussed above.
The result is polarisation, and individuals tend to adopt more extreme positions than they held previously. Although,
as we will discuss below, various studies provide a more nuanced insight into Sunstein’s words, there is certainly no
shortage of work to support the theory of confirmation bias, through which people interpret information in line with
previous beliefs, referring to sources that support them and ignoring those sources that would refute them or challenge
them (Nickerson, 1998; Stroud, 2010; Muddiman; Stroud, 2017). Thus, Steinfeld, Samuel-Azran & Lev-On (2016) noted
how readers were openly cynical with users who questioned their pre-existing points of view, and that, in general, expo-
sure to disagreement is limited (Zhou; Chan; Peng; 2008). Although users tend to believe that they act autonomously,
evolutionary, cognitive and neurological phenomena and other adaptive and unconscious mechanisms induce them to
confirm their own convictions and to reject the contrasting information (Sharot, 2017; Bargh, 2017; Shermer, 2011).
In the context that we have described, this, in addition
to increasing the illusion of certainty, causes polarisa- Academic literature has oscillated be-
tion, extreme identification with the group and lack of tween an initial optimism about the po-
diversity. Various authors state that spaces for discus- tential for strengthening democracy of
sion reinforce homophily (Dvir-Gvirsman, 2017; Trilling; communication technologies to a critical
Van-Klingeren; Tsfati, 2016). Other research examines
the pessimistic point of view in more detail and offers
scepticism.
some hope on the role that the public sphere may even-
tually develop (Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011; Camaj; Santana, 2015; Oz; Zheng; Chen, 2018). The degree of polarisation
depends on the topics of discussion. While there are heavily ideologised topics in which alternative viewpoints are scar-
ce, in other apparently nonpolitical topics, discussion takes place among individuals who differ in their political opinions
(for instance, regarding the Boston Marathon bombing, the Super Bowl or the Winter Olympics (Barberá et al., 2015).
The number and quality of the comments, and especially their incivility, are conditioned by various contextual variables.
In general, news on the more controversial issues attracts more comments (Boczkowski; Mitchelstein, 2012; Weber,
2013; Tenenboim; Cohen, 2015; Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2010; Ziegele et al., 2017). The predominant role of politics as
the main topic which provokes comments appears repeatedly in the academic literature (Richardson; Stanyer, 2011;
Boczkowski; Mitchelstein, 2012; Tenenboim; Cohen, 2015). Coe, Kenski & Rains (2014) found that news stories on cer-
tain subjects were more likely to receive disparaging remarks. In particular, political, economic and international news
received one uncivil comment for every four comments posted, whereas the proportion is considerably lower in the ‘soft
news’ topics such as health, lifestyle, or technology. The exception to this is sports, which provoke a significant level of
incivility. Consistent with this, Oz, Zheng & Chen (2018) warned that discussions on more sensitive issues, which they
defined as those with a heavy moral content, contain greater incivility and impoliteness. These issues, however, were
also those that had a greater number of deliberative attributes. A study of 42 US news outlets’ Facebook pages over an
18-month period showed that the civility of the readers’ comments varied according to the ideological stance of the
media and the typology. Conservative news outlets and local media were more likely to receive uncivil comments than
the liberal news outlets and the national media (Su et al., 2018).
In addition to the topic, the sources used can also influence incivility. For example, a study of more than 300 articles and
6,400 comments published on a US newspaper website, found that the articles that contained a quotation from Presi-
dent Obama received more uncivil comments than those that did not contain one (Coe; Kenski; Rains, 2014). In general,
content that is regarded as more biased, due to the lack of inclusion of sources, has more hostile remarks than content
that contains a greater variety of sources (Ksiazek; Peer; Zivic, 2015; Ksiazek, 2018).
The tone of the comments can also influence readers’ opinions on a specific topic, particularly of those users who are
less interested in the topic discussed (Winter; Krämer, 2016), due to people’s fear of isolation. The readers of comments
can modify their view of a particular topic by moving it towards what is perceived to be the majority of public opinion
(Lee; Jang, 2010; Anderson et al., 2014; Hsueh; Yogeeswaran; Malinen, 2015). In general, users are more likely to ex-

press their opinion when it is in agreement with the majority (Soffer; Gordoni, 2017; Chen; Lu, 2017), which leads to a
real lack of debate, a dialogue of the deaf (Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011).
Ziegele et al., (2018) and Heinbach, Ziegele & Quiring (2018) found that constructive comments generated greater inte-
rest in the article they related to, while aggressive comments caused in turn equally aggressive replies (Chen; Lu, 2017;
Gonçalves, 2018; Ziegele et al., 2017), including comments that were politely expressed but expressed disagreement
with the majority opinion (Chen; Lu, 2017). Aggressiveness, therefore, provokes greater aggressiveness, but far from this
being a source of discouragement, a number of studies have shown that it encourages greater participation and longer
visits (Steinfeld; Samuel-Azran; Lev-On, 2016; Bakker; Pantti, 2009). On the other hand, the findings of Springer, Engel-
mann & Pfaffinger (2015), suggest that low-quality comments act as inhibitors of participation.
The increase in participation, the number and length of
visits would be in line with the media’s strategic objec- In general, users are more likely to ex-
tives for these spaces for participation and comments press their opinion when it is in agree-
(Domingo et al., 2008; Nilsson; Örnebring, 2016; Vujno- ment with the majority, which leads to
vic et al., 2010), and would illustrate the second disa- a real lack of debate, a dialogue of the
ppointment described by Borger et al. (2013) regarding
the momentum of the media’s participatory options: deaf
disappointment with the financial motives of journalism
in facilitating participatory journalism. Readers are also aware of the media’s financial motivations for reader participa-
tion (Steinfeld; Samuel-Azran; Lev-On, 2016; Masip et al., 2015b).
In spite of this financial logic, there is a concern about the negative impact that comments could have on the image of
the media, and on the audience’s perception of the quality of the news (Anderson; Brossard; Scheufele, 2012; Hsueh;
Yogeeswaran; Malinen, 2015) and the journalistic practice itself (Hermida; Thurman, 2008; Braun; Gillespie, 2011;
Prochazka; Weber; Schweiger, 2018; Domingo, 2018). Consequently, some media have decided to close their spaces for
comments (CNN, Bloomberg, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times...) (Masip, 2011). The way forward to address these problems
is to devote more time and attention to comments, despite the objections expressed by some journalists (Robinson,
2010; Reich, 2011; Mitchelstein, 2011; Bergström; Wadbring, 2015).
The undeniable potential of digital deliberation requires a rethinking of these spaces so they can be effectively used.
This was the conclusion of various recent studies, which advocate a redesign of the spaces that improves usability and
quality interaction, and the introduction of effective mechanisms for moderation (Zamith; Lewis, 2014). On this point,
several studies (Karpowitz; Raphael, 2014; Wright; Street, 2007) state that the design should be conducive to fostering
discussion and that, under the right conditions, well-designed spaces can lead to deliberation aimed at sharing reasoned
and well-informed opinions.
Through experimental studies, Peacock, Scacco & Stroud (2017) showed that the design of the space allocated for the
comments and the information that goes with them can increase the willingness to comment. A structure where conflic-
ting views are clearly identified favours the posting of more comments. The inclusion of multimedia content also leads
to greater participation (Ksiazek, 2018), although it does not affect its quality (Liu; Zhou; Zhao, 2015).
Although they are in a minority, various studies that have compared the behaviour of readers on different platforms,
have detected different behaviour. Thus, for example, Oz, Zheng & Chen (2018) noted that posts responding to the
White House’s tweets were significantly more uncivil and impolite and less deliberative than responses to White House
Facebook posts. However, a study comparing the news comments on political news between The Washington Post site
and the Washington Post Facebook page found that comments on the news site were more likely to be relevant to the
topic, be ideologically balanced, offer alternative perspectives, include sources for their arguments, and pose questions
for getting more clarity, and foster dialogue, compared to news comments on its Facebook page (Rowe, 2015).
Together with an improvement in the way the spaces for comments are set out, moderation appears to be the most
effective measure to help to create a climate which is more conducive to deliberation. After the initial profusion of
sections for comments with few mechanisms for their management, in recent years the media have opted to introduce
systems to control the content that users publish (Gsell, 2009). Most of them have introduced some kind of registration
system, banned anonymous posting, set up filters and, in parallel, introduced systems for moderation (Reader, 2012).
In some cases, only subscribers are allowed to comment, for instance on Lemonde.fr. In parallel, various media moved
the comments to their Facebook pages, where the ‘real name policy’ leads to more orderly and respectful participation
(Rowe, 2014).
The two main forms of moderation were moderation prior to posting the comments or the moderation done after
the fact. Although the former was used to some extent, the latter was initially the more popular type of moderation,
involving less intervention, although it involved extra work for the journalists (Reich, 2011). The volume of published
comments led the media to outsource moderation, a cost-effective but controversial solution. Firstly, it has proved to be
quite ineffective and secondly it runs counter to the philosophy that should govern the momentum of interaction in the
media and which would make it possible to take the pulse of the audience (Masip, 2011).

Without a doubt, users are more willing to participate in a moderated community than in an unmoderated one (Wise;
Hamman; Thorson, 2006) and there is an overall link between moderation and the level of civility (Coe; Kenski; Rains,
2014; Ruiz-Caballero et al., 2011). Users are more likely to participate when they know that journalists are moderating
(Meyer; Carey, 2014; Ksiazek, 2018) and do so more politely (Stroud et al., 2014; Ksiazek, 2018). Reader often ask for
greater involvement of journalists in the spaces of participation and interaction provided by the media [Suau, 2015;
Suau; Masip; Ruiz-Caballero (forthcoming)], but with little success (Loke, 2012; Robinson, 2010). Moderation, however,
is also viewed as a form of censorship in that comments expressing views that do not align with the predominant voices
can be deleted, thus leading to the spiral of silence (Sherrick; Hoewe, 2018).
The introduction of comment moderation systems as described above has not meant the disappearance of incivility,
whereas it entails reduction in the number of commentators (Meyer; Carey, 2014). However, they provide an environ-
ment in which users who wish to comment feel more comfortable. The mandatory registration and banning of anony-
mous comments have a direct relationship with the quality of the comments (Ksiazek, 2018) and the respect expressed
in them (Santana, 2014), since anonymity has a disinhibiting effect that facilitates forms of expression would not nor-
mally occur in an offline environment (Suler, 2004). Anonymous comments are also less likely to motivate a change of
opinion by the readers (Haines et al., 2014) and are viewed as less credible (Rains, 2007).
Despite the fact that the move away from anonymity seems to have been strengthened, there are still many who defend
the right to anonymity, as a component of the right to privacy (Masip, 2010). They argue that anonymity leads to a grea-
ter diversity of views, especially in those contexts in which the use of real names may have repercussions later (Meyer;
Carey, 2014) or when dealing with sensitive or personal issues (Wu; Atkin, 2018).
Despite the fact that comments are one of the most popular forms of participation in the media (Newman et al., 2016;
Masip et al., 2015; Bergström; Wadbring, 2015), only a minority of the audience post comments on the news on a re-
gular basis, whereas the reading of comments is widespread. Research to date has focused particularly on studying the
characteristics and motivations of ‘commentators’, although several studies have also focused on users who only read
the comments (Springer; Engelmann; Pfaffinger, 2015; Diakopoulus; Naaman, 2011).
Lurkers, or those users who do not publish regularly, but read the comments, are present in most online communities
(Barnes, 2018), and despite their passive attitude feel part of the community. Barnes (2013) calls them engaged lis-
teners. They may have an emotional reaction to the content, but they do not externalise it, although they may make
subsequent use of that content (Hampton, 2016). Springer, Engelmann & Pfaffinger (2015) take that view that these
engaged listeners are also part of the deliberative process, which can take place both through direct participation, by
commenting, or in a passive way, reading; or even in less demanding forms such as giving a ‘like’ (Sorensen, 2016).
The research carried out to date has defined the users of the comments sections of the news fairly clearly. In general,
they are active users on social networks, young and mostly men (Bergström, 2008; Stroud; Muddiman; Scacco, 2016).
In addition, they show an interest in politics and have a higher level of education (Ziegele et al., 2013; Bergström, 2008),
although a recent study in Germany showed users with a low educational level as more likely to post comments (Ziegele
et al., 2018). The authors link that change to the aggressive nature of the comments sections, which has led some users
to shift their deliberative concerns to more controlled environments (Frankel, 2018).
In addition to the analysis of the socio-demographic characteristics of the commentators, several studies have examined
cognitive aspects to explain users’ motivation for commenting, usually from the perspective of uses and gratification
theory. Springer, Engelmann & Pfaffinger (2015) identified four dimensions that encompass the main gratification ob-
tained when commenting: cognitive, emotional-entertainment, social-interactive and personal identity.
Users are particularly interested in commenting due to factors related to cognitive dimensions, such as expressing their
views or disseminating information (Diakopoulus; Naamer, 2011; Canter, 2013), but they also hope to be able to inte-
ract with the authors of the news (Springer; Engelmann; Pfaffinger, 2015). They obtain the greatest satisfaction when
this interaction takes place. In line with this, Rojas (2010) also found that users want to share their opinion and correct
erroneous information.
The dimension of social integration is also important for
Despite the fact that the move away
users, as they need to feel part of a community, either from anonymity seems to have been
through commenting or by participating in social net strengthened, there are still many who
works. Correa, Hinsley & Gil de Zúñiga (2010) observed defend the right to anonymity, as a com-
that some personal variables such as emotional instability ponent of the right to privacy.
or loneliness were related to a greater use of social media.
As we have seen, the concept of digital deliberation goes beyond the strict limits of comments having left the newspa-
pers websites and made the leap to the wide avenues of social networks. It also seeks to widen its outlook to take in
other forms of deliberation, albeit some of these questionable. We have mentioned lurkers, talked about the engaged
listeners and even the likes. Another essential is news sharing, the user’s new ability to distribute news on social net
works, as well as looking at the new ways they have for obtaining information.

6. New news consumption practices

In recent years, the role of social networks in the consumption of news has gradually gained importance. According to
comparative data compiled at an international level, citizens are increasingly using social networks as their primary or
secondary source of access to news (Newman et al., 2018). In Spain, for example, 60% of the population use social ne-
tworks as their source of news, and 53% say that they share news on social networks, mainly Facebook and WhatsApp
(Newman et al., 2018). By 2011 Olmstead, Michael & Rosenstiel had already identified the most significant implications
of these new behaviour patterns in terms of sharing and consuming news in the public sphere, arguing that, if the search
for information on the internet was the most significant change of the previous decade, its role in the new ways in which
information is shared, debated and re-disseminated will prove to be the great innovation of the next decade.
Several authors have highlighted the transformative potential and the relevance of users’ interactions on social networ-
ks with respect to the traditional news cycle, when exchanging or commenting on content related to news or matters
of general interest (Nielsen; Schrøder, 2014; Almgren; Olsson, 2015; Newman; Blank, 2012). It is felt that these new
dynamics, originating from users who share, recommend or send items of news by means of public or private messages
to their contacts on social networks, result in a broadening of the scope of the influence ordinary citizens have on the
public sphere (Singer et al., 2011; Papacharissi, 2015b; Klinger; Svensson, 2015), bringing into question the traditional
hegemony of the media and journalists as the sole gatekeepers of public interest issues (Suau, 2015).
The concept of news curating, or content curation underpins studies on news sharing, implying a more active and
conscious role for the audience in the practice of news sharing (Bruns, 2018). The identification of audiences as poten-
tial content curators is closely linked to the euphoria or optimism that arose from the idea of Web 2.0; the social web
(Curran et al., 2010). The concept of content curation is closely linked to debates about new audience roles in an envi-
ronment that fosters new forms of participation (Bruns, 2018, Thorsen, 2013, Bruns; Highfield, 2015). With the rise of
social networks, particularly after Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 US presidential elections, the optimistic discourse
that generally follows any technological innovation began to revolve around social networks and their transformative
potential (Loader; Mercea, 2012; Curran et al., 2010), in what became labelled participatory culture (Deuze; Bruns;
Neurberg, 2007, Domingo et al., 2008; Van-Dijck; Nieborg, 2009). The power of participatory culture manifests itself in
different areas of society, but does so above all in the media: in a discussion that has switched from user-generated con-
tent to user-distributed content (Lietsla; Sirkkuken, 2008; Napoli, 2009), thus focusing the debate on the redistribution
of journalistic content. Describing audiences as curators of content (social curators) on social networks implies ascribing
an active motivated role to those who share news in 2.0 environments (Bruns, 2018; Villi, 2012): the role of a citizen who
selects and interprets the most interesting news content and then shares it on social networks, promoting a dialogue
around the theme of shared news.
The concept of a curator is derived from the art world and it is no coincidence that terms like social curator or news cura-
ting continue to be used today in reference to the way news is shared on the internet (Bruns, 2018). According to O’Neil
(2007), the curator influences how art is experienced, mediating between the audience and the art works. Thanks to the
curator’s design for an exhibition and creation of a narrative or dialogue between the different pieces, the audience is
assisted in their understanding of the overall meaning of the exhibition. The concept of the curator, like so many others,
was first appropriated and redefined
for the field of marketing, and later, for
other areas such as the media (Loader;
Mercea, 2012). In its original sense in
the art world, it is associated with a
professional figure experienced in the
selection and interpretation of works
of art. A person who is knowledgeable
in their field and chooses different pie-
ces to create a discourse that will take
the form of an exhibition at a public or
private cultural institution. Establishing
an analogy between participatory au-
diences and the figure of the curator
involves ascribing significance to the
role or motivation of citizens in terms
of sharing news. If we call citizens who
share, comment on or value news on
Facebook, Twitter or WhatsApp social
curators or content curators (Clark; Auf
derheide, 2009; Villi, 2012), it is clear,
therefore, that these practices are moti- https://www.facebook.com/barackobama
vated and have a direct impact. Recent

research demonstrates that sharing content has a marked social exchange nature (Purcell et al., 2010), which seeks to
increase ability to influence the community, maintain social cohesion and strengthen social status. Thus the decision to
share is neither casual nor random (Goh et al., 2017). For this reason, the term news sharing will be used in this paper to
describe the redistribution of content. It is felt that it makes more sense for the term content curation to be associated
with the new roles or work practices of journalists, as highlighted by Bakker (2014), or even used in relation to concepts
such as reciprocal journalism in regard to maintaining or healing the relationship with audiences (Lewis et al., 2014).
We have adopted Kümple, Karnowski & Telling’s (2015) definition of news sharing which includes all practices that
provide a specific group of citizens with access to journalistic content, either by sharing or recommending it on social
networks. This definition is useful, since it allows the act of sharing to be separated from the intentionality of the user:
news sharing can be occasional or sporadic and can also refer to more conscious, planned activities. Although ‘sharing’
is a very common practice on social networks (Lampinen, 2015), the concept is limited by referring solely to “news” in
a broad sense (Owen, 2018). It is understood therefore that the content shared is of public interest, regardless of its
format.
7. ‘News sharing’: dismantling the ‘gatekeeper’

Evidently the practice of news sharing and commenting was common before the emergence of the internet. From in-
formal conversations to passing the newspaper between friends and family, or cutting out articles of interest, the news
has been shared since the invention of the first newspapers or gazettes (Hermida et al., 2012). However, like so many
other daily activities, the practice has evolved with the emergence of new technologies, speeding up the processes by
which citizens can recommend and redistribute news, first via email or on forums and more recently through WhatsApp,
Facebook or Twitter (Kalsnes; Larsson, 2018; Larsson, 2018).
According to Kümpel et al. (2015), the first academic articles about news sharing date from 2005, although it is not until
2010 when a larger number of academic papers on this object of study begin to emerge. Various authors have pointed
out the growing number of citizens who practice the re-dissemination or distribution of news content through social
networks (Jenkins; Ford; Green, 2013), which in turn has an impact on the number of users who receive news from their
own environment (Hermida et al., 2012; Newman; Dutton; Blank, 2012; Purcell et al., 2010; Villi, 2012). Tewksburg &
Rittenberg (2012, p. 158) call this process of citizen involvement in the distribution of relevant content the “democratiza-
tion of information”, because it is closely linked to a change in the consumption of news: from that of a model based on
mass audiences to one based more on small connected communities of audiences that share content in different spaces
on the internet (Villi, 2012). Choi (2016) identifies two dimensions of the act of news sharing; on the one hand recon-
textualising and, on the other, endorsing. In other words, sharing not only involves disseminating information, but also
re-evaluating it, providing a new framework for its interpretation and an expression of support for the shared content.
Following this argument, Singer (2014) identifies three ways in which users can influence the dissemination and flow of
information, turning audiences into “secondary gatekeepers”, by:
- providing an evaluation of the contributions of journalists and other users;
- communicating the value or perceived quality of the material; and
- re-diffusing selected content.
While recognizing the fundamental role of social media, Singer acknowledges the use of other less popular tools, such as
email or abusive content reporting options, as mechanisms available to users to promote the visibility of news.
All of these ‘secondary control’ options allow citizens to challenge the old monopoly enjoyed by journalists as the sole
guardians of news content, presenting a challenge to the traditional media when determining what is interesting and
newsworthy (Shoemaker; Vos, 2009; Singer, 2014; Coddington; Holton, 2014; Vos; Heinderyckx, 2015). Furthermore,
when publishing and disseminating content on public issues, it is clear that citizens also exchange opinions and promote
debate, in the same way that they do when these issues arise in a gathering of family or friends (Min, 2007). In this sen-
se, several authors (Gil de Zúñiga; Copeland; Bimber, 2013; Dimitrova et al., 2011; Anduiza; Cantijoch; Gallego, 2009)
suggest that news sharing, as well as posting comments can be considered an act of political participation or engage-
ment with matters of public interest.
If this is the case, the question arises whether some contents are shared more frequently than others, and following
the same reasoning, whether those that are indeed shared more frequently are what Mouffe (2005; 2013) terms “the
political”. To determine what type of content tends to be shared, read or commented on in greater numbers by users is
an issue of immense interest for both the industry and academia (Boczkowski; Mitchelstein, 2012); especially from the
point at which website data traffic begins to be considered of economic interest by newsrooms (Olmstead; Mitchell;
Rosenstiel, 2011; Singer, 2010; Usher, 2017, Vujnovic et al., 2010). Recent studies have shown that editorial decisions
about the positioning of certain articles on the web are affected proportionally by the degree of their diffusion on social
networks (Cherubini; Nielsen, 2016, Berger; Milkman, 2009).
Boczkowski, Mitchelstein & Mora (2018) confirm that news of a political or economic nature tends to be more fre-
quently shared, especially during periods of more intense political activity, such as elections. As was observed during

the Arab Spring or the protests in Iran in 2009, situations of extreme conflict significantly affect the type of news that
is shared (Fahmy, 2012; Zhou et al., 2010). Beyond specific issues, the relevance, surprising or controversial nature of
the news affect how viral it goes (Rudat; Buder; Hesse, 2014). Trilling et al. (2016) found that news within a framework
of conflict was shared 11% more on Twitter, and 9% more on Facebook. Other factors that have similar effects are the
human interest (García-Perdomo et al., 2007) or the emotional component of the news (Berger; Milkman, 2010; Kim,
2015), especially that with positive or comforting content (Berger; Milkman, 2010; 2012; Bakshy et al., 2012). Likewise,
content from a source considered to be trustworthy, or valued as relevant, also has a greater possibility of being shared
(Bandari; Asur; Huberman, 2012; Rudat; Buder; Hesse, 2014).
The social network on which news is shared is also significant. As previously noted, due to the lack of time and financial
resources to adequately moderate comment threads, the media turned to a strategy based on incentivising the re-dis-
semination of content and debate on social networks outside of the media’s own spaces (Ihlebaek; Krumsvik, 2015;
Villi, 2012). Comparative research carried out into this at an international level shows that Facebook is the main chan-
nel on which audiences interact by news sharing, with Twitter being the second (Lichterman, 2016; Nielsen; Schrøder,
2014). Strategies aimed at motivating users to re-disseminate content on any social network are a priority for the media
(Krumsvik, 2013), although users who access websites through social networks tend to remain on them for less time
than those who access such websites directly (Anderson; Caumont, 2014).
A considerable amount of research has been carried out into what type of content users are more likely to share on so-
cial networks. In the first place, the use made of the two major social networks should be differentiated. While Twitter
is more frequently used in cases of breaking news and to distribute news to contacts with whom, for the most part, no
personal relationship exists (Newman; Dutton; Blank, 2012; Anderson; Caumont, 2014; Masip; Ruiz-Caballero; Suau,
2019), Facebook tends to attract participation that is linked to contacts with whom a connection exists in the offline
world: friends, family, acquaintances, etc. (Enjolras et al., 2013; Kormelink; Costera-Meijer, 2015). The Twitter user pro-
file is associated with an older public possessing an elite or specialized component, and it is common to see journalists
and politicians especially active on the social network (Newman; Levy, 2014; Engesser; Humpretch, 2015). Hermida et
al. (2012) conclude that the role of acquaintances is fundamental on Facebook, since citizens tend to receive (and read)
more news if it comes from their friends and family.
8. Sharing, between selfishness and altruism

Research into what motivates users to share or debate news on social networks has also received considerable attention
from communication studies. In order to define the motivation and attitudes of citizens who share or debate news, it is
first worth mentioning the vast diversity of research results presented by this discipline. According to Kalogeropoulos et
al. (2017), both the national context and the degree of engagement or connection individuals demonstrate with public
affairs are very important when interpreting these different results (Suau, 2015). It is necessary to take such details into
account, as otherwise it may appear that some research results in completely contradictory findings. For example, there
are a large number of quantitative studies that suggest that the majority of news sharing or debates on social networks
are motivated by entertainment or a personal connection with the news item, as opposed to motivations of a political
nature or desire to enrich the journalistic process (Baden; Springer, 2014; Larsson, 2012; Paskin, 2010; Heise et al.,
2013). However, in their international comparative study Kalogeropoulos et al. (2017) suggest that a positive spiral of
reinforcement exists in terms of sharing and debating practices on social networks: with highly motivated or politically
active citizens more likely to share news on social networks and to enter into political debates, while those with less
involvement or interest in politics or in matters of public interest are less likely to do so. While these results may seem
contradictory at first sight, in reality the contextual and personal factors complement each other. Authors such as Va-
lenzuela, Piña & Ramírez (2017) have pointed to three different factors that influence the practice of sharing and/or
debating news: emotion, motivation and psychological connection.
In order to better understand the motivation behind sharing or debating news, it is first necessary to take a moment to
consider the characteristics and profile of citizens who adopt this type of participatory practice. First, numerous studies
have highlighted the issue of leadership. It is suggested that a large number of citizens who share news or debate more
or less regularly on networks tend to identify themselves as having leadership attributes or positions, and display some
interest in disseminating their opinion (Hu et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2011; Ma; Lee; Goh, 2013). Also linked to the issue
of leadership is the social network user’s perception of their own position in relation to public affairs. As pointed out
by Kalogeropoulos et al. (2017), those citizens who share most frequently are more connected (Couldry; Livingstone;
Markham, 2007) with public affairs: they tend to follow more, and more varied, media, perceiving the sharing of diverse
news as positive (Rosengard et al., 2014; Yang; Chang; Chen, 2014). In this sense, the factor of connection with the offli-
ne world is very important. Those citizens who maintain strong ties (Gladwell, 2010) off-line tend to share more news,
because they perceive that sharing can affect or influence their contacts in a positive way to a greater extent, while also
maintaining a positive vision of the effectiveness of sharing their opinions on public forums (Ma; Lee; Goh, 2014). Recent
research suggests that, rather than a conscious decision to establish themselves as a leader or reference among their
contacts, it is the feeling of being connected and able to influence or disseminate opinions that predisposes citizens to
share (Picone; De-Wolf, 2016; Springer; Engelmann; Pfaffinger, 2016). Although this might be the profile of a citizen

who tends to share the most, contextual factors are also highly relevant. As seen previously, particularly convulsive po-
litical contexts (Fahmy, 2012; Zhou et al., 2010), and above all, shocking or outrageous information (Berger, 2011) can
result in an increase in the number of citizens sharing news.
Kümpel et al. (2015) classify the motivation for sharing into three main groups: altruistic, social and personal or egoistic.
With regard to motivation of a personal or egoistic nature, some research points to entertainment as the main incentive
for engaging in participatory practices on social networks (Lee; Ma, 2012; Ma et al., 2012). The emotional rewards of
news sharing, with similarities to those of entertainment, have been highlighted by some authors: in which some citi-
zens feel compelled to share those news items that have gone viral in a way that is practically unconscious (Heimbach et
al., 2015), while others highlight the desire to share that news with which citizens have a strong emotional attachment
(Bright, 2016; Berger; Milkman, 2012; Stieglitz; Dang-Xuan, 2013). Several authors have suggested that some citizens
decide to participate as a way to attract attention or gain reputation among their contacts (Boyd; Golder; Lotan, 2010;
Berger, 2014). The most relevant altruistic motivation consists of participating in order to maximize the dissemination
of information deemed relevant to society (Holton et al., 2014). And finally, those citizens who participate for social
reasons are felt to do so out of a desire to socialise or a need to receive social approval (Hanson; Haridakis, 2008; Lee;
Ma, 2012).
It should be noted that several studies have indicated that, although relevant in numerical terms, the total number of
citizens who participate on social networks remains a minority of overall users (Suau, 2015; Guallar et al., 2016; Masip et
al., 2015). Reasons for not participating in either news sharing or commenting, include not wanting to express opinions
that might contradict what is believed to be the majority opinion among contacts (Kormelink; Costera-Meijer, 2018).
According to Kalsnes & Larsson (2018), this negative motivation might be numerically significant enough to explain why
the majority of citizens do not participate in news sharing or commenting. All this poses the question whether social ne-
tworks tend to create ideologically homogeneous spaces and it is important, therefore, to consider the possible effects
social networks have on the construction of echo chambers, or ideological bubbles, in which citizens tend to only interact
with others who hold similar opinions. Phenomena that have attracted much attention in recent years like misinforma-
tion and selective exposure are closely related to this issue and are discussed below.
9. ‘Echo-chambers’ and selective exposure: pluralism threatened

Since the early years of communication studies the effect of the media on democratic society and, more specifically, its
effect on political participation and the configuration of political stances and attitudes, has frequently been the subject
of research. Several theories relevant to the traditional media should be outlined before reviewing that related to the in-
ternet and new information and communication technologies (Kim; Kim, 2012). In the first place, the theories clustered
around the so-called media malaise highlight the negative nature of the effects of the media, especially television, on
citizen participation and civic engagement (Bourdieu, 1998; Sartori, 1998). The media’s treatment of politics, presenting
it as a game or a competition, focusing on political leadership (Mcallister, 2007) is felt to have contributed to apathy and
distrust among the electorate (Cappella; Jamieson, 1997). In contrast, other authors argue that the greater availability
of information, together with an increase in education in Western countries have had a positive effect on democracy
(Dalton, 1996; Inglehart, 1997). Some authors indicate that the consumption of news is positively linked to indicators
of political participation and civic engagement (Van-Zoonen, 2005), creating a kind of virtuous circle in which those
citizens with more interest in public affairs reinforce their political connection by means of paying constant attention to
the media (Norris, 2000).
While different views on the effects of the traditional media exist, there has been little discussion about the health of
Western democracies during the years that coincide with the expansion of the internet and, later, that of social networ-
ks. Several authors point out that at the end of the 20th Century some indicators of democratic health were concerning
(Dahlgren, 2007): demonstrating a decrease in the percentage of electoral participation and affiliation to political parties
and a growing distrust in governments (Pharr; Putnam, 2000; Dalton, 1996; Gray; Caul, 2000). This growing discontent
towards forms of participation in traditional institutions stood opposite a supposed increase in or tendency towards
non-traditional forms of participation or civic involvement (Norris, 2002; Inglehart, 1997; Hall, 2002).
It is in this context that research into the effects of new technologies on democratic Western societies first developed,
with the main questions raised during this first stage being similar to those previously asked about the traditional me-
dia: do the various types of online participation constitute a new way of attracting citizens to participate in the public
sphere? Can social networks and the internet attract political participation or strengthen the civic links of less connected
citizens? (Anduiza; Jensen; Jorba, 2012). Given the optimism of the early years of research into new technologies (Quan-
dt, 2018), it is not surprising that the dominant response to these questions was positive (Curran; Fenton; Freedman,
2012). Some authors pointed out that new technologies facilitated greater participation among those citizens who were
already connected or active (Best; Krueger, 2005; Jensen, 2006), while others highlighted the ways in which new tech-
nologies made it easier to bring more citizens to public life, due to the reduction in costs of information and participation
(Min, 2007; Rheingold, 2002; Esser; De-Vreese, 2007). More recently, there have been a large number of studies that
have pointed to the positive nature of the internet and social networks in terms of social change, highlighting the role of
the internet in social movements (Castells, 2009) and the potential for social networks to increase young people’s access

to issues of public interest (Banaji; Buckingham, 2013). It appeared that Western societies, with citizens still showing an
interest in politics but wishing to intervene in it in a far from traditional way, had found on the Internet the ideal space
to develop new forms of participation.
This positive optimistic discourse about the effects of new technologies, specifically social networks, on society has been
completely lost in recent years. The current dominant discourse about how new technologies are modifying the public
sphere, the role of different agents and the transmission and consumption of news, while not pessimistic, is much more
moderate. Gone are the optimistic speeches about how the internet was going to change the world, transforming po-
litical participation and facilitating more direct intervention in the public sphere. Perhaps the first alarm bells sounded
when it was discovered that the same ease of information distribution enjoyed by the ordinary citizen, recalling the joy
awakened by the figure of the citizen journalist (Suau, 2015), was available to extremist or terrorist groups, to dissemi-
nate their messages and ideology on the internet with
no controls (Andersen; Sandberg, 2018). And as for the In political information, the theory of
effects on democracy, debates no longer revolve around
selective exposure argues that citizens
whether social networks help attract new citizens to the
public sphere, but to what degree they encourage phe- tend to choose media that identify with
nomena such as the fragmentation and polarization of their positions or political ideology
societies, as well as the dissemination of disinformation
(European Commission, 2018). This debate is developed below; taking as a starting point the revision of one of the theo-
ries that has guided research in communication over the last few decades: selective and incidental exposure to news
content. How the participatory practices of citizens, especially that of news sharing on social networks, have modified
patterns of news consumption is one of the issues that might have facilitated the propagation of misinformation, con-
tributing to the polarization of the public sphere and its fragmentation into small communities of ideologically related
individuals.
10. Bursting the bubble

The theory of selective exposure was first formulated several decades ago (Lazarsfeld; Berelson; Gaudet, 1948), and has
regained a presence in communication studies over recent years as new forms of online participation have permitted
citizens to have greater influence over information consumption patterns (Brundidge, 2010). In the field of political in-
formation, the theory of selective exposure argues that when citizens make decisions about their media and information
consumption, they tend to choose those media that identify with their own political stance or ideology. Even before the
advent of the internet, the pernicious effects of selective exposure without limitations were already being discussed by
various authors (Galston, 2002; Sunstein, 2001). Due to the tendency citizens have for selective exposure, a media sys-
tem that fails to promote accidental exposure to contrary points of view leads inexorably to a fragmentation of the public
sphere into distinct communities that do not interact, thus contributing to an increased polarization between those of
differing political stances (Prior, 2013; 2007; Aalberg; Blekesaune; Elvestad, 2013). In Spain, the tendency citizens show
towards selective exposure is well demonstrated. The various studies carried out by Humanes (2016) in relation to the
traditional media confirm that the Spanish audience tends to consume those media that they identify as sharing their
own ideology or political stance.
As the use of the internet developed and became more generalised (Press; Williams, 2010), debates around selective
exposure were revitalised. At first, research pointed to some possible positive consequences of the greater ease of
access to news and information on the internet (Newman; Dutton; Blank, 2012; Weber; Loumakis; Bergman, 2003;
Tewksbury; Weaver; Maddex, 2001). However, as online environments have developed, especially with the emergence
of social networks, views on selective and accidental exposure have changed. Some authors have highlighted the com-
plexity in the current hybrid media system of quantifying each citizen’s exposure to information, due to cross-media
consumption patterns (Chadwick, 2013; Schrøder, 2013) and the unquestionable fact that the means by which citizens
consume news have been completely transformed in recent years (Boulianne, 2015). As stated above, the existing data
point to the fact that in Spain around 60% of citizens consume news and approximately 50% share information content
via social networks (Newman et al., 2018), with the majority of this content comprising links to news from major media
outlets received from relatives, friends and acquaintances (Masip et al., 2015). How is selective exposure affected by the
new participatory practice of news sharing? The principal subject of debate is whether social networks facilitate selecti-
ve exposure by creating echo-chambers or filter bubbles where citizens receive only information that is in line with their
ideology, or if, on the contrary, the use of social networks facilitates accidental exposure to news, by exposing citizens to
un-related ideological content or sources.
Fears generated by the generalization of “social news”, or a media environment in which citizens access news mainly via
social networks are that news consumption is significantly affected by the configuration of each user’s contacts. Based
on the fact that our contacts on the most popular social networks are basically our family, friends and acquaintances,
some authors suggest that there is a real risk of receiving mostly news that does not question our ideological positions
(Bakshy et al., 2015; Groshek; Koc-Michalska, 2017). This creates echo-chambers of political affinity in which only citi-
zens who think in a similar way interact (Dahlgren, 2013), a format that promotes selective exposure without the citizen

having to make any effort to avoid exposure to different opinions. The algorithms of the social network itself already
prioritise control over increasing the visibility of those contacts with whom we interact the most (Pariser, 2011) without
taking into account the quality of the news they share (Pasquale, 2015). The 2016 US elections were a trigger for the
theory that the creation of ideological bubbles would contribute to the polarization of society and the propagation of
false news and disinformation (Sunstein, 2017, Khaldarova; Pantti, 2016), all of which goes some way to explaining the
victory of populist candidates like Donald Trump.
However, more recent research offers data that qualifies the most pessimistic views on echo-chambers or ideological
bubbles. In the case of Spain, Masip, Suau & Ruiz-Caballero (2018) point out that accidental exposure exists on social
networks: with the Spanish audience not only receiving information contrary to their points of view, but some also
sharing it. Although it is true that there is a tendency towards greater ideological affinity between contacts on social ne-
tworks, on two of the main social networks there exists an element of discordant voices, Facebook and WhatsApp (Suau,
2015). Studies in other countries back up these results, indicating that accidental exposure is favoured and exposure to
unrelated points of view is superior to that initially thought to be the case, reducing the importance of selective expo-
sure on social networks (Bakshy et al., 2012; Barberá et al., 2015) as well as on other platforms such as Google News
(Haim; Graefe; Brosius, 2018). Although on a general level it seems that there is no relation between the use of social
networks and an increase in polarization (Boxell et al., 2017), various studies demonstrate differences between groups
of citizens. With Dubois and Blank (2018) establishing that those citizens most interested in politics and those who pay
greater attention to the media are more likely to avoid ideological bubbles.
Although the existence of ideological bubbles is a reality, there does not seem to be any one factor that determines
the inevitability of being trapped in one. Thus it seems that, on social networks as in the analogical world, the most
significant factor in their emergence is the way citizens behave. As Bechman & Nielbo (2018) argue, regardless of other
factors such as gender, age or level of education, the greater number of contacts and variety of pages followed, the lower
the likelihood of selective exposure. Having a greater number of contacts on social networks also facilitates accidental
exposure (Fletcher; Nielsen, 2018).
It should also be noted that accidental exposure, although necessary, is generally associated with low levels of political
awareness. As highlighted by Gil de Zúñiga et al. (2017), those citizens whose main source of news comes from acciden-
tal exposure on social networks, tend to display lower levels of awareness and understanding of public affairs, compared
to those who consume media directly. In turn, those citizens who mostly consume accidental news are also more likely
to believe in fake news and other types of misinformation, or assume it to be correct (European Commission, 2018). It is
therefore still too early to determine how and at what level, online disinformation affects the political stance of citizens
(Alcott; Gentskow, 2017) or if, as is
feared, it contributes to polariza-
tion (Flaxman et al., 2016; Peter-
son et al., 2018). Recent electoral
processes in Europe, as well as in
the United States and Brazil, have
brought media issues such as the
dissemination of disinformation
via social networks and WhatsApp
to the fore. In the coming years,
research in the field of communi-
cation studies will be tasked with
investigating these phenomena in
detail in order to clarify the spe-
cific effects of exposure to misin-
formation, as well as the real level
at which the re-dissemination of
these contents affects political at- Whatsapp de Flavio Bolsonaro
titudes and stances.
11. Final considerations, concerning Dewey

Dewey (1946) reminds us of the link, beyond the merely verbal, between the words common, community and commu-
nication. Human beings live in community by virtue of what they have in common, and communication is the way by
which they come to have these things in common. Among such common elements, the pragmatic philosopher empha-
sized knowledge, making a common intelligence possible. Communication should ensure participation in this common
intelligence, the epistemological dimension reclaimed by Habermas (2006). Almost a century ago, Dewey reflected on
the concept of public opinion and considered that the problem was not that the public, that is, a large body of people
who have a common interest in the consequences of social transactions, did not exist. The problem, he said, was that
there was too much public: that it was too diffuse, scattered and intricate in its composition. And he added, as if twee-

ting: how can a public be organized (...) when it literally will not stay in one place? Dewey reflected on this in a public
sphere that was already a faded image of Habermas’ concept. However as Dewey stated, the essential need, both then
and now, is the same:
“the improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, discussion and persuasion”.
This, he concluded, “is the problem of the public”. And we add: this is the problem of the public sphere, of public opinion
and of democracy.
12. Note
1. Here we are referring to conversations such as the group of comments posted on a news story, either on media or
platforms such as Facebook or Twitter.
13. References
Aalberg, Toril; Blekesaune, Arild; Elvestad, Eiri (2013). “Media choice and informed democracy: Toward increasing news
consumption gaps in Europe”. The international journal of press/politics, v. 18, n. 3, pp. 281-303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161213485990
Aalberg, Toril; Van-Aelst, Peter; Curran, James (2010). “Media systems and the political information environment: A
cross-national comparison”. The international journal of press/politics, v. 15, n. 3, pp. 255-271.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210367422
Allcott, Hunt; Gentzkow, Matthew (2017). “Social media and fake news in the 2016 election”. Journal of economic pers-
pectives, v. 31, n. 2, pp. 211-236.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Almgren, Susanne M.; Olsson, Tobias (2015). “Let’s get them involved... to some extent: Analyzing online news partici-
pation”. Social media + society, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115621934
Andersen, Jan-Christoffer; Sandberg, Sveinung (2018). “Islamic State propaganda: Between social movement framing
and subcultural provocation”. Terrorism and political violence, Online first.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1484356
Anderson, Ashley A.; Brossard, Dominique E.; Scheufele, Dietram A. (2012). “Online talk: how exposure to disagree-
ment in online comments affects beliefs in the promise of controversial science”. In: L. J. Phillips; A. Carvalho; J. Doyle
(eds.). Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication. Bristol: Intellect, pp.
119-136. ISBN: 978 1 841506210
Anderson, Ashley A.; Brossard, Dominique; Scheufele, Dietram A.; Xenos, Michael A.; Ladwig, Peter (2014). “The
‘Nasty effect:’ Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies”. Journal of computer-mediated communi-
cation, v. 19, n. 3, pp. 373-387.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009
Anderson, Monica; Caumont, Andrea (2014). How social media is reshaping news. Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/24/how-social-media-is-reshaping-news
Anduiza, Eva; Cantijoch, Marta; Gallego, Aina (2009). “Political participation and the Internet”. Information, communi-
cation and society, v. 12, n. 6, pp. 860-878.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180802282720
Anduiza, Eva; Cristancho, Camilo; Sabucedo, José M. (2014). “Mobilization through online social networks: the political
protest of the indignados in Spain”. Information, communication and society, v. 17, n. 6, pp. 750-764.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808360
Anduiza, Eva; Jensen, Michael; Jorba, Laia (2012). Digital media and political engagement around the world: A compa-
rative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978 1 107668492
Baden, Christian; Springer, Nina (2014). “Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news
users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate”. European journal of communication, v. 29, n. 5,
pp. 529-548.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724
Bakker, Piet; Pantti, Mervi (2009). “Beyond news: user-generated content on Dutch media websites”. In: Future of jour-
nalism conference. Cardiff, Wales, 9-10 September.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229016844_Beyond_News_User-generated_content_on_Dutch_media_
websites

Bakker, Piet (2014). “Mr. Gates returns: Curation, community management and other new roles for journalists”. Journa-
lism studies, v. 15, n. 5, pp. 596-606.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.901783
Bakshy, Eytan; Rosenn, Itamar; Marlow, Cameron; Adamic, Lada-Ariana (2012). “The role of social networks in informa-
tion diffusion”. In: Procs of the 21st intl conf on world wide web.
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2187907
Bakshy, Eytan; Messing, Solomon; Adamic, Lada-Ariana (2015). “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on
Facebook”. Science, v. 348, n. 6239, pp. 1130-1132.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
Banaji, Shakuntala; Buckingham, David (2013). The civic web: Young people, the internet, and civic participation. Cam-
bridge, The MIT Press. ISBN: 978 0 262 01964 4
Bandari, Roja; Asur, Sitaram; Huberman, Bernardo A. (2012). “The pulse of news in social media: Forecasting popula-
rity”. In: Procs of the Sixth intl AAAI conf on weblogs and social media.
https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/viewFile/4646/4963
Barber, Benjamin R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California
Press. ISBN: 978 0 520 05616 7
Barberá, Pablo; Jost, John T.; Nagler, Jonathan; Tucker, Joshua A.; Bonneau, Richard (2015). “Tweeting from left to
right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?”. Psychological science, v. 26, n. 10, pp. 1531-1542.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
Barnes, Renee (2018). Uncovering online. Commenting online: Trolls, fanboys and lurkers. Cham, SW: Palgrave Macmi-
llan. ISBN: 978 3 319 70234 6
Barnes, Renee (2013). “The ‘ecology of participation’. A study of audience engagement on alternative journalism websi-
tes”. Digital journalism, v. 2, n. 4, pp. 542-557.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.859863
Batorski, Dominik; Grzywińska, Ilona (2018). “Three dimensions of the public sphere on Facebook”. Information, com-
munication and society, v. 21, n. 3, pp. 356-374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281329
Bauman, Zygmund (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 978 0 745624105
Bauman, Zygmund (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 978 0 745635156
Bechmann, Anja; Nielbo, Kristoffer L. (2018). “Are we exposed to the same ‘news’ in the news feed?: An empirical
analysis of filter bubbles as information similarity for Danish Facebook users”. Digital journalism, v. 6, n. 8, pp. 990-1002.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1510741
Beck, Ulrich; Willms, Johannes (2004). Conversations with Ulrich Beck. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 978 0 745628233
Benkler, Yochai (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven:
Yale UP. ISBN: 978 0 300 11056 2
http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf
Benkler, Yochai; Roberts, Hal; Faris, Robert; Solow-Niederman, Alicia; Etling, Bruce (2015). “Social mobilization and the
networked public sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA debate”. Political communication, v. 32, n. 4, pp. 594-624.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.986349
Bennett, W. Lance (2008). Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
ISBN: 978 0 262026345
Bennett, W. Lance; Iyengar, Shanto (2008). “A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political commu-
nication”. Journal of communication, v. 58, pp. 707-731.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
Bennett, W. Lance; Segerberg, Alexandra (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization
of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978 1 107642720
Berger, Jonah; Milkman, Katherine L. (2012). “What makes online content viral?” Journal of marketing research, v. 49,
n. 2, pp. 192-205.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

Bergström, Annika (2008). “The reluctant audience: Online participation in the Swedish journalistic context”. Westmins-
ter papers in communication and culture, v. 5, n. 2, pp. 60-79.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.3657&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bergström, Annika; Wadbring, Ingela (2015). “Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and oppor-
tunities in reader comments”. European journal of communication, v. 30, n. 2, pp. 137-151.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114559378
Best, Samuel J.; Krueger, Brian S. (2005). “Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation”. Political
behavior, v. 27, n. 2, pp. 183-216.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3242-y
Boczkowski, Pablo J.; Mitchelstein, Eugenia (2012). “How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on
online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing, and commenting”. Human communication research, v. 38, n. 1, pp. 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x
Boczkowski, Pablo J.; Mitchelstein, Eugenia; Matassi, Mora (2018). “News comes across when I’m in a moment of lei-
sure: Understanding the practices of incidental news consumption on social media”. New media and society, v. 20, n. 10,
pp. 3523-3539.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817750396
Borger, Merel; Van-Hoof, Anita; Costera-Meijer, Irene; Sanders, José (2013). “Constructing participatory journalism as
a scholarly object: A genealogical analysis”. Digital journalism, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 117-134.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2012.740267
Boulianne, Shelley (2015). “Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research”. Information, com-
munication and society, v. 18, n. 5, pp. 524-538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998). On television and journalism. London: Pluto Press. ISBN: 978 0 745313337
Boxell, Levi; Gentzkow, Matthew; Shapiro, Jesse M. (2017). “Is the Internet causing political polarization? Evidence from
demographics”. NBER Working paper No. W23258.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258.pdf
Boyd, Danah (2007). “Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life”. In: D.
Buckingham (ed.). Macarthur Foundation series on digital learning - Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, pp. 1-26. ISBN: 978 0 262524834
Boyd, Danah; Ellison, Nicole B. (2007). “Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship”. Journal of compu-
ter-mediated communication, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 210-230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Boyd, Danah; Golder, Scott; Lotan, Gilad (2010). “Tweet, tweet, retweet: conversational aspects of retweeting on Twit-
ter”. In: HICSS-43. IEEE: Kauai, HI, January 6.
https://www.danah.org/papers/TweetTweetRetweet.pdf
Brenne, Sarah (2016). “Political discussion on social media and the public sphere”. Sociology and anthropology, v. 4, n.
4, pp. 270-275.
https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2016.040410
Bright, Jonathan (2016). “The social news gap: How news reading and news sharing diverge”. Journal of communication,
v. 66, n. 3, pp. 343-65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12232
Broersma, Marcel; Graham, Todd (2013). “Twitter as a news source”. Journalism practice, v. 7, n. 4, pp. 446-464.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.802481
https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/12824342/Broersma_and_Graham_2013.pdf
Brooks, Deborah-Jordan; Geer, John G. (2007). “Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate”. American
journal of political science, v. 51, n. 1, pp. 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x
Brundidge, Jennifer (2010). “Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the inter-
net to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks”. Journal of communication, v. 60, n. 4, pp. 680-700.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
Bruns, Axel; Highfield, Tim (2016). “Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and de public Sphere”. In: Bruns, Axel et al.
(eds.). The Routledge companion to social media and politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 56-73. ISBN: 978 1 138300934
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/91810

Bruns, Axel; Highfield, Tim (2015). “From news blogs to news on Twitter: Gatewatching and collaborative news curati-
on”. In: Coleman, Stephen; Freelon, Deen. Handbook of digital politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 325-
339. ISBN: 978 1 78643 563 7
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/84995
Bruns, Axel (2008a). “Life beyond the public sphere: Towards a networked model for political deliberation”. Information
polity, v. 13, n. 1-2, pp. 65-79.
Bruns, Axel (2008b). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
ISBN: 978 0 820488660
Bruns, Axel (2018). Gatewatching and news curation: Journalism, social media, and the public sphere. New York: Peter
Lang. ISBN: 978 1 4331 3320 6
https://goo.gl/k8hqPN
Bruns, Axel; Highfield, Tim, Burgess; Jean (2013). “The Arab Spring and social media audiences: English and Arabic Twi-
tter users and their networks”. American behavioral scientist, v. 57, n. 7, pp. 871-898.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479374
Butsch, Richard (2008). The citizen audience. crowds, publics, and individuals. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978 0 415977890
Calhoun, Craig (1992). “Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere”. In: Calhoun, C. (ed.). Habermas and the public
sphere. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 1-44. ISBN: 978 0 262531146
Camaj, Lindita; Santana, Arthur D. (2015). “Political deliberation on Facebook during electoral campaigns: Exploring the
relevance of moderator’s technical role and political ideology”. Journal of information technology and politics, v. 12, v.
4, pp. 325-341.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1100224
Canter, Lily (2013). “The misconception of online comment threads: Content and control on local newspaper websites”.
Journalism practice, v. 7, n. 5, pp. 604-619.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.740172
Cappella, Joseph N.; Jamieson, Kathleen-Hall (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN: 978 0 195090642
Castells, Manuel (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN:
978 0 199595693
Chadwick, Andrew (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN:
978 0 199759477
Chen, Gina-Masullo; Lu, Shuning (2017). “Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil
disagreement in news website comments”. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, v. 61, n. 1, pp. 108-125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922
Cherubini, Federica; Nielsen, Rasmus-Kleis (2016). Editorial analytics: How news media are developing and using audi-
ence data and metrics. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/editorial-analytics-how-news-media-are-developing-and-using-
audience-data-and-metrics
Choi, Jihyang (2016). “News internalizing and externalizing: The dimensions of news sharing on online social networking
sites sharing news on social networking sites”. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, v. 93, n. 4, pp. 816-835.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628812
Clark, Jessica; Aufderheide, Patricia (2009). Public media 2.0: Dynamic, engaged publics. Center for Media and Social
Media.
http://cmsimpact.org/sites/default/files/documents/pages/publicmedia2.0.pdf
Coddington, Mark; Holton, Avery E. (2014). “When the gates swing open: Examining network gatekeeping in a social
media setting”. Mass communication and society, v. 17, n. 2, pp. 236-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.779717
Coe, Kevin; Kenski, Kate; Rains, Stephen A. (2014). “Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in news-
paper website comments”. Journal of communication, v. 64, n. 4, pp. 658-679.
Cooke, Nicole A. (2018). Fake news and alternative facts: Information literacy in a post-truth era. Chicago: ALA Editions.
ISBN: 978 0 838916360

Correa, Teresa; Hinsley, Amber-Willard; Gil de Zúñiga, Homero (2010). “Who interacts on the web?: The intersection of
users’ personality and social media use”. Computers in human behavior, v. 26, n. 2, pp. 247-253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Couldry, Nick (2003). Media rituals: A critical approach. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978 1 134490172
Couldry, Nick; Livingstone, Sonia; Markham, Tim (2007). Media consumption and public engagement. New York: Palgra-
ve Macmillan. ISBN: 978 0 230 80082 3
Cunningham, Stuart (2001). “Popular media as public ‘sphericules’ for diasporic communities”. International journal of
cultural studies, v. 4, n. 2, pp. 131-147.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136787790100400201
Curran, James (2011a). Media and democracy. Communication and society. London, England: Routledge. ISBN: 978 0
415317078
Curran, James (2011b). Media and society. London, England: Bloomsbury. ISBN: 978 0 340984451
Curran, James; Fenton, Natalie; Freedman, Des (2012). Misunderstanding the Internet. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978
0 415 57958 2
https://courses.helsinki.fi/sites/default/files/course-material/4511752/CURRAN%20ET%20AL_Misunderstanding%20
the%20internet.pdf
Dahlberg, Lincoln (2005). “The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized conditions of democratic
communication”. Studies in social and political thought, n. 10, pp. 2-18.
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=10-1a.pdf&site=412
Dahlberg, Lincoln (2011). “Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’”. New media & society, v. 13,
n. 6, pp. 855-872.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569
Dahlgren, Peter (2000a). “The Internet and the democratization of civic culture”. Political communication, n. 17, pp.
335-340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600050178933
Dahlgren, Peter (2000b). “Media, citizens and civic culture”. In: M. Gurevitch; J. Curran (eds.). Mass media and society,
3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold, pp. 310-328. ISBN: 978 0 340884997
Dahlgren, Peter (2003). “Reconfiguring civic culture in the new media milieu”. In: J. Comer; D. Pels (eds.). Media and
political style: Essays on representation and civic culture. London: Sage, pp. 151-170.
Dahlgren, Peter (2005). “The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation”. Politi-
cal communication, n. 22, pp. 147-162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
Dahlgren, Peter (2007). “Youth, civic engagement and learning via new media”. In: Peter Dahlgren (ed.). Young citizens
and new media: Learning for democratic participation. New York: Routledge, pp. 1-18. ISBN: 978 0 415395991
Dahlgren, Peter (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambri-
dge UP. ISBN: 978 0 521 52789 7
Dahlgren, Peter (2013). The political web. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978 1 137326379
Dalton, Russell J. (1996). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced Western democracies. Chatham:
Sage.
Davenport, Thomas; Beck, John C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new economy of business. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Review Press. ISBN: 978 1 578518715
Del Vicario, Michela; Bessi, Alessandro; Zollo, Fabiana; Petroni, Fabio; Scala, Antonio; Caldarelli, Guido; Stanley, H.
Eugene; Quattrociocchi, Walter (2016). “The spreading of misinformation online”. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, v. 113, n. 3, pp. 554-559.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
Deuze, Mark (2001). “Understanding the impact of the Internet. On new media professionalism, mindsets and buz-
zwords”. Ejournalism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254750080_Understanding_the_impact_of_the_Internet_On_new_media_
professionalism_mindsets_and_buzzwords
Deuze, Mark; Bruns, Axel; Neuberger, Christoph (2007). “Preparing for an age of participatory news”. Journalism prac-
tice, v. 1, n. 3, pp. 322-338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780701504864

Dewey, John (1946). The public and its problems. An essay in political inquiry. Chicago: Gateway Books. ISBN: 978 0
804011662
Diamond, Larry-Jay; Plattner, Marc F. (2012). Liberation technology: Social media and the struggle for democracy. Balti-
more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN: 978 1 4214 0568 1
https://hci.stanford.edu/courses/cs047n/readings/diamond-libtech.pdf
Dimitrova, Daniela V.; Shehata, Adam; Strömbäck, Jesper; Nord, Lars W. (2011). “The effects of digital media on poli-
tical knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data”. Communication research, v. 41, n.
1, pp. 95-118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004
Domingo, David; Quandt, Thorsten; Heinonen, Ari; Paulussen, Steve; Singer, Jane B.; Vujnovic, Marina (2008). “Parti-
cipatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. An international comparative study of initiatives in online news-
papers”. Journalism practice, v. 2, n. 3, pp. 326-342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780802281065
Dubois, Elizabeth; Blank, Grant (2018). “The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest in
diverse media”. Information communication and society, v. 21, n. 5, pp. 729-745.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
Dvir-Gvirsman, Shira (2017). “Media audience homophily: Partisan websites, audience identity and polarization proces-
ses”. New media & society, v. 19, n. 7, pp. 1072-1091.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625945
Edstrom, Maria (2016) “The trolls disappear in the light: Swedish experiences of mediated sexualised hate speech in the
aftermath of Behring Breivik”. International journal for crime, justice and social democracy, v. 5, n. 2, pp. 96-106.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.314
Eltantawy, Nahed; Wiest, Julie B. (2011). “The Arab Spring| social media in the Egyptian Revolution: Reconsidering
resource mobilization theory”. International journal of communication, v. 5, pp. 1207-1224.
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1242
Engesser, Sven; Humprecht, Edda (2015). “Frequency or skillfulness”. Journalism studies, v. 16, n. 4, pp. 513-529.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.939849
Enjolras, Bernard; Steen-Johnsen, Kari; Wollebaek, Dag (2013). “Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrati-
ons: Transcending participatory divides?”. New media & society, v. 15, n. 6, pp. 890-908.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812462844
Esser, Frank; De-Vreese, Claes H. (2007). “Comparing young voters’ political engagement in the United States and Euro-
pe”. American behavioral scientist, v. 50, n. 9, pp. 1195-1213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207299364
European Commission (2018). Final report of the High Level Expert Group on fake news and online disinformation. A
multi-dimensional approach to disinformation.
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/final-report-high-level-expert-group-fake-news-and-online-
disinformation
Fahmy, Nagwa-Abdel-Salam (2012). “News diffusion and facilitation of conversation” Journal of Middle East Media, v.
8, n. 1, pp. 1-21.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/90596188/news-diffusion-facilitation-conversation
Fisher, Caroline (2017). “Bypassing the news media: Politicians and public regaining control”. Reuters Institute Digital
News Report, Ireland, pp. 98-100.
Fisher, Caroline; Culloty, Eileen; Lee, Jee-Young; Park, Sora (2019). “Regaining Control Citizens who follow politicians on
social media and their perceptions of journalism”. Digital journalism, Online first.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1519375
Flaxman, Seth; Goel, Sharad; Rao, Justin M. (2016). “Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption”.
Public opinion quarterly, v. 80, n. S1, pp. 298-320.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
Fletcher, Richard; Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2018). “Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A compara-
tive analysis”. New media and society, v. 20, n. 7, pp. 2450-2468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170

Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House. ISBN: 978 0 679752554
Frankel, Mark (2018). The promises and pitfalls of reporting within chat apps and other semi-open platforms: A journa-
list’s guide.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/a-journalists-guide-to-the-promises-and-pitfalls-of-reporting-within-open-and-
closed-and-semi-open-platforms
Fraser, Nancy (1992). “Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy”. In: C.
Calhoun (ed.). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 109-142. ISBN: 978 0 262531146
Galston, William (2002). “The impact of the Internet on civic life: An early assessment”. In: E. Kamarck; J. Nye (eds.).
Governance.com: Democracy in the information age. Washington, DC: Brookings, pp. 40-58. ISBN: 978 0 815702177
Galston, William (2003). “If political fragmentation is the problem, is the Intemet the solution?”. In: D. M. Anderson; M.
Cornfield (eds.). The civic web: Online politics and democratic values. Lanham, MD: Rowman; Littlefield, pp. 35-44. ISBN:
978 0 742501942
García-Perdomo, Víctor; Salaverría, Ramón; Kilgo, Danielle K.; Harlow, Summer (2018). “To share or not to share: The
influence of news values and topics on popular social media content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina”. Journa-
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896
Garrett, R. Kelly (2009). “Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate”. Journal
of communication, v. 59, n. 4, pp. 676-699.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
ISBN: 978 0 804719445
Gil de Zúñiga, Homero; Copeland, Lauren; Bimber, Bruce (2013). “Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the
social media connection”. New media & society, v. 16, n. 3, pp. 488-506.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487960
Gil de Zúñiga, Homero; Weeks, Brian; Ardèvol-Abreu, Alberto (2017). “Effects of the news-finds-me perception in com-
munication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics”. Journal of computer-mediated
communication, v. 22, n. 3, pp. 105-123.
https://goo.gl/Tqss4Q
Gillmor, Dan (2004). We the media: Grassroots journalism, by the people, for the people. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.
https://goo.gl/HGo79e
Gitlin, Todd (1998). “Public sphere or public sphericules?”. In: T. Liebes and J. Curran (eds.). Media, ritual and identity.
London: Routledge, pp. 175-202. ISBN: 978 0 415159913
Gladwell, Malcolm (2010). “Small change”. The New Yorker. October, 4.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
Goh, Debbie; Ling, Richard; Huang, Liuyu; Liew, Doris (2017). “News sharing as reciprocal exchanges in social cohesion
maintenance”. Information communication and society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1406973
Goldhaber, Michael H. (1997). “The attention economy and the Net”. First Monday, v. 2, n. 4.
https://firstmonday.org/article/view/519/440
Gonçalves, João (2018). “Aggression in news comments: How context and article topic shape user-generated content”.
Journal of applied communication research, v. 46, n. 5, pp. 604-620.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1529419
Gray, Mark; Caul, Miki (2000). “Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: The effects of
declining group mobilization”. Comparative political studies, v. 33, n. 9, pp. 1091-1122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414000033009001
Groshek, Jacob; Koc-Michalska, Karolina (2017). “Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support
for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign”. Information, communication and society, v. 20,
n. 9, pp. 1389-1407.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1329334
Gsell, Lindsay (2009). “Comments anonymous: Newspaper web sites wrestle with offensive blog comments”. American
journalism review, v. 31, n. 1, 16 pp.
http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4681
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA194529311

Guallar, Javier; Suau, Jaume; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Sáez, Albert; Masip, Pere (2016). “Re-dissemination of news and
public debate on social networks”. El profesional de la información, v. 25, n. 3, pp. 358-366.
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.may.05
Habermas, Jürgen (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston:
Beacon Press. ISBN: 0 8070 1507 5
http://www.dphu.org/uploads/attachements/books/books_2795_0.pdf
Habermas, Jürgen (1987). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist
reason. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN: 978 0 807014011
https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/4421-the_theory_of_communicative.pdf
Habermas, Jürgen (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois
society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN: 978 0 262 08180 1
https://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/phil123-net/publicness/habermas_structural_trans_pub_sphere.pdf
Habermas, Jürgen (1998). Conciencia moral y acción comunicativa. Barcelona: Península, 1998. ISBN: 978 84 74324488
Habermas, Jürgen (2003). La ética del discurso y la cuestión de la verdad. Barcelona: Paidós. ISBN: 978 84 49314483
Habermas, Jürgen (2006). “Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimensi-
on? The impact of normative theory on empirical research”. Communication theory, v. 16, n. 4, pp. 411-426.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
Haciyakupoglu, Gulizar; Zhang, Weiyu (2015). “Social media and trust during the Gezi protests in Turkey”. Journal of
computer-mediated communication, v. 20, n. 4, pp. 450-466.
Haim, Mario; Graefe, Andreas; Brosius, Hans-Bernd (2018). “Burst of the filter bubble?: Effects of personalization on the
diversity of Google News”. Digital journalism, v. 6, n. 3, pp. 330-343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145
Haines, Russell; Hough, Jill; Cao, Lan; Haines, Douglas (2014). “Anonymity in computer-‐mediated communication:
More contrarian ideas with less influence”. Group decision and negotiation, v. 23, n. 4, pp. 765-786.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9318-2
Hall, Peter A. (2002). “Great Britain: The role of Government and the distribution of social capital”. In: Putnam, Robert
D. (ed.) Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
21-57. ISBN: 978 0 195150896
https://doi.org/10.1093/0195150899.001.0001
Hanson, Gary; Haridakis, Paul (2008). “YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications appro-
ach”. The journal of electronic publishing, v. 11, n. 3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.305
Hartley, John; Green, Joshua (2006). “The public sphere on the beach”. European journal of cultural studies, v. 9, n. 3,
pp. 341-362.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549406066077
Heimbach, Irina; Schiller, Benjamin; Strufe, Thorsten; Hinz, Oliver (2015). “Content virality on online social networks:
empirical evidence from Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ on German news websites”. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM
Conf on hypertext & social media. ISBN:
Heinbach, Dominique; Ziegele, Marc; Quiring, Oliver (2018). “Sleeper effect from below: Long-term effects of source
credibility and user comments on the persuasiveness of news media”. New media & society, v. 20, n. 12, pp. 4765-4786.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818784472
Hermida, Alfred (2010). “Twittering the news - The emergence of ambient journalism”. Journalism practice, v. 4, n. 3,
pp. 297-308.
https://www.jour.auth.gr/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Hermida.pdf
Hermida, Alfred (2013). “#Journalism: Reconfiguring journalism research about Twitter, one tweet at a time”. Digital
journalism, v. 1, n. 3, pp. 295-313.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.808456
Hermida, Alfred; Fletcher, Fred; Korell, Darryl; Logan, Donna (2012). “Share, like, recommend”. Journalism studies, v.
13, n. 5-6, pp. 815-824.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664430

Hermida, Alfred; Lewis, Seth C.; Zamith, Rodrigo (2014). “Sourcing the Arab Spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sour-
ces on Twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions”. Journal of computer-mediated communication, v. 19, n. 3,
pp. 479-499.
Hermida, Alfred; Thurman, Neil (2008). “A clash of cultures. The integration of user-generated content within professio-
nal journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites”. Journalism practice, v. 2, n. 3, pp. 343-356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780802054538
Herrera-Damas, Susana; Hermida, Alfred (2014). “Tweeting but not talking: The missing element in talk radio’s institu-
tional use of Twitter”. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, v. 58, n. 4, pp. 481-500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966361
Himelboim, Itai; McCreery, Stephen; Smith, Marc (2013). “Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and
content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on twitter”. Journal of computer-mediated communication, v. 18,
n. 2, pp. 40-60.
Holbert, R. Lance; Garrett, R. Kelly; Gleason, Laurel S. (2010). “A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and
Iyengar”. Journal of communication, v. 60, n. 1, pp. 15-34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x
https://rkellygarrett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Holbert-et-al.-New-era-of-minimal-effects.pdf
Holton, Avery; Baek, Kang; Coddington, Mark; Yaschur, Carolyn (2014). “Seeking and sharing: Motivations for linking on
Twitter”. Communication research reports, n. 31, pp. 33-40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013.843165
Hsueh, Mark; Yogeeswaran, Kumar; Malinen, Sanna (2015). “Leave your comment below’: Can biased online comments
influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?” Human communication research, v. 41, n. 4, pp. 557-576.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059
Hu, Mengdie; Liu, Shixia; Wei, Furu; Wu, Yingcai; Stasko, John; Ma, Kwan-Liu (2012). “Breaking news on Twitter”. In:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
Humanes, María-Luisa (2016). “Exposición selectiva, partidismo y polarización de las audiencias de los medios en Es-
paña”. In: Casero, Andreu (coord.). Periodismo y democracia en el entorno digital. Madrid: SEP, pp. 37-52. ISBN: 978 84
606 6945 6
http://www.periodistica.es/sep2016r/images/pdf/Periodismo-y-Democracia.pdf
Hwang, Hyunseo; Kim, Youngju; Kim, Yeojin (2018). “Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination
of the mediating role of moral indignation”. Communication research, v. 45, n. 2, pp. 213-240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215616861
Ihlebaek, Karoline-Andrea; Krumsvik, Arne H. (2015). “Editorial power and public participation in online newspapers”.
Journalism, v. 16, n. 4, pp. 470-487.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913520200
Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 Societies.
Princeton: Princeton University. ISBN: 978 0 691011806
Iyengar, Shanto; Hahn, Kyu S. (2009). “Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use”. Journal
of communication, v. 59, n. 1, pp. 19-39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
Jeffries, Stuart (2016). Grand Hotel Abyss. The lives of the Frankfurt School. London-New York: Verso Books. ISBN: 978
1 784785680
Jenkins, Henry; Ford, Sam; Green, Joshua (2013). Spreadable media. New York: New York University Press. ISBN: 978 0
814743508
Jensen, J. Linaa (2006). “The Minnesota e-democracy project: Mobilising the mobilised?”. In: Oates, S.; Owen, D.; Gibson,
R. (eds.). The Internet and politics. Citizens, voters and activists. London: Routledge, pp. 39-58. ISBN: 978 0 415347846
Kalogeropoulos, Antonis; Negredo, Samuel; Picone, Ike; Nielsen, Rasmus-Kleis (2017). “Who shares and comments
on news?: A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation”. Social media + society, v.
3, n. 4, pp. 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117735754

Kalsnes, Bente; Larsson, Anders-Olof (2018). “Understanding news sharing across social media”. Journalism studies, v.
19, n. 11, pp. 1669-1688.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1297686
Karpowitz, Christopher F.; Raphael, Chad (2014). “Introduction”. Deliberation, democracy, and civic forums: Improving
equality and publicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978 1 107 04643 6
Keane, John (1991). The media and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 978 0 745608044
Khaldarova, Irina; Pantti, Mervi (2016). “Fake news. The narrative battle over the Ukrainian conflict”. Journalism prac-
tice, v. 10, n. 7, pp. 891-901.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1163237
Kim, Hyun-Suk (2015). “Attracting views and going viral: How message features and newssharing channels affect health
news diffusion”. Journal of communication, v. 65, n. 3, pp. 512-534.
Kim, Min-Gyu; Kim, Joohan (2012). “Comparing the effects of newspaper, TV news, and the internet news on the eva-
luation of a major political candidate: Latent growth modeling with longitudinal panel data from the 2007 presidential
campaign in South Korea”. International journal of public opinion research, v. 24, n. 1, pp. 62-78.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr046
Klinger, Ulrike; Svensson, Jakob (2015). “The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoreti-
cal approach”. New media & society, v. 17, n. 8, pp. 1241-1257.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952
Kormelink, Tim-Groot; Costera-Meijer, Irene (2018). “What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices”.
Journalism, v. 19, n. 5, pp. 668-683.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916688290
Kovach, Bill; Rosenstiel, Tom (2001). The elements of journalism: what news people should know and the public should
expect. New York: Three Rivers. ISBN: 978 0 804136785
Krumsvik, Arne H. (2013). “Towards a typology of strategies for user involvement”. In: Friedrichsen, M.; Mühl-Bennin-
ghaus, W. (eds.). Handbook of social media management. Media business and innovation. Berlin: Springer, pp. 657-670.
ISBN: 978 3 642288968
Ksiazek, Thomas B. (2018). “Commenting on the news: Explaining the degree and quality of user comments on news
websites”. Journalism studies, v. 19, n. 5, pp. 650-673.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1209977
Ksiazek, Thomas B.; Peer, Limor; Zivic, Andrew (2015). “Discussing the news: Civility and hostility in user comments”.
Digital journalism, v. 3, n. 6, pp. 850-870.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.972079
Kümpel, Anna-Sophie; Karnowski, Veronika; Keyling, Till (2015). “News sharing in social media: A review of current
research on news sharing users, content, and networks”. Social media + society, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141
Lampinen, Airi (2015). “Deceptively simple: Unpacking the notion of ‘sharing’”. Social media + society, v. 1, n. 1.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115578135
Lanham, Richard A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press. ISBN: 978 0 226 46882 2
Larsson, Anders-Oloff (2012). “Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why?”. Conver-
gence: The international journal of research into new media technologies, v. 18, n. 2, pp. 195-213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511430184
Larsson, Anders-Olof (2018). “‘I shared the news today, oh boy’: News provision and interaction on Facebook”. Journa-
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1154797
Lasorsa, Dominic L.; Lewis, Seth C.; Holton, Avery E. (2012). “Normalizing Twitter. Journalism practice in an emerging
communication space”. Journalism studies, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 19-36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2011.571825
Lazarsfeld, Paul-Felix; Berelson, Bernard; Gaudet, Hazel (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind
in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ISBN: 978 0 231085830
Lee, Chei-Sian; Ma, Long (2012). “News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience”. Com-

puters in human behavior, v. 28, n. 2, pp. 331-339.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321100210X?via%3Dihub
Lee, Eun-Ju; Jang, Yoon-Jae (2010). “What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presen-
tation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception”. Communication research, v. 37, n. 6, pp. 825-846.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210376189
Lewis, Seth C.; Holton, Avery E.; Coddington, Mark (2014). “Reciprocal journalism”. Journalism practice, v. 8, n. 2, pp.
229-241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859840
Lewis, Seth C.; Molyneux, Logan (2018). “A decade of research on social media and journalism: Assumptions, blind
spots, and a way forward”. Media and communication, v. 6, n. 4, pp. 11-23.
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1562
Lichterman, Joseph (2016). Twitter has outsized influence, but it doesn’t drive much traffic for most news orgs, a new
report says. Nieman Lab.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/04/twitter-has-outsized-influence-but-it-doesnt-drive-much-traffic-for-most-news-
orgs-a-new-report-says
Lietsala, Katri; Sirkkunen, Esa (2008). Social media: Introduction to the tools and processes of participatory economy.
Tampere: Tampere University Press. ISBN: 978 951 44 7374 6
https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/65560/978-951-44-7320-3.pdf
Liu, Qian; Zhou, Mi; Zhao, Xin (2015). “Understanding news 2.0: A framework for explaining the number of comments
from readers on online news”. Information and management, v. 52, n. 7, pp. 764-776.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.01.002
Livingstone, Sonia (2005). “On the relation between audiences and publics: Why audience and public”. In: Livingstone,
Sonia (ed.). Audiences and publics: When cultural engagement matters for the public sphere. Bristol: Intellect Books, pp.
17-41. ISBN: 1841501298
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/92597.pdf
Livingstone, Sonia (2013). “The participation paradigm in audience research”. The communication review, v. 16, n. 1-2,
pp. 21-30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2013.757174
Loader, Brian D.; Mercea, Dan (2012). Social media and democracy. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN: 978 0 415683708
Loke, Jaime (2012). “Old turf, new neighbors: Journalists’ perspectives on their new shared space”. Journalism practice,
v. 6, n. 2, pp. 233-249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.616649
Losey, James (2014). “The Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement and European civil society: A Case study of networked
advocacy”. Journal of information policy, v. 4, pp. 205-227.
https://goo.gl/AC8to9
Ma, Long; Lee, Chei-Sian; Goh, Dion-Hoe-Lian (2013). “Investigating influential factors influencing users to share news in
social media: A diffusion of innovations perspective”. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint conference on digital
libraries.
Ma, Long; Lee, Chei-Sian; Goh, Dion-Hoe-Lian (2014). “Understanding news sharing in social media: An explanation
from the diffusion of innovations theory”. Online information review, v. 38, n. 5, pp. 598-615.
https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2013-0239
Manosevitch, Idit; Tenenboim, Ori (2017). “The multifaced role of user-generated content in news websites. An analyti-
cal framework”. Digital journalism, v. 5, n. 6, pp. 731-752.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1189840
Masip, Pere (2011) “Comentarios de las noticias: la pesadilla de los cibermedios”. Anuario ThinkEPI, v. 5, pp. 106-111.
https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/ThinkEPI/article/viewFile/30478/16044
Masip, Pere; Guallar, Javier; Suau, Jaume; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Peralta, Miquel (2015a). “News and social networks:
audience behavior”. El profesional de la información, v. 24, n. 4, pp. 363-370.
https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.jul.02
Masip, Pere; Guallar, Javier; Suau, Jaume; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Peralta, Miquel (2015b). “Active audiences and jour-
nalism: Involved citizens or motivated consumers?”. Brazilian journalism research, v. 11, pp. 234-255.

https://doi.org/10.25200/BJR.v11n1.2015.815
Masip, Pere; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Suau, Jaume (2015). “Journalists hegemonies in the age of journalism participation:
the audience’s perspective”. IAMCR intl conf, Montreal (Canada), July 12-15.
Masip, Pere; Ruiz-Caballero, Carles; Suau, Jaume (2019). “Contesting professional procedures of journalists: public
conversation on Twitter after Germanwings accident”. Digital journalism, Online first.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1546551
Masip, Pere; Suau-Martínez, Jaume; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos (2018). “Questioning the selective exposure to news: unders-
tanding the impact of social networks on political news consumption”. American behavioral scientist, v. 62, n. 3, pp. 300-319.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217708586
Massey, Brian L.; Levy, Mark R. (1999). “‘Interactive’ online journalism at English-language web newspapers in Asia: A
dependency theory analysis”. International communication gazette, v. 61, n. 6, pp. 523-535.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549299061006005
Mcallister, Ian (2007). “The personalization of politics”. In: The Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford Handbooks
Online. ISBN: 978 0 199270125
Melucci, Alberto (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN: 978 0 521578431
Messing, Solomon; Westwood, Sean J. (2014) “Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements Trump par-
tisan source affiliation when selecting news online”. Communication research, v. 41, n. 8, p. 1042-1063.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
Meyer, Hans K.; Carey, Michael-Clay (2014). “In moderation. Examining how journalists’ attitudes toward online com-
ments affect the creation of communit”. Journalism practice, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 213-228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859838
Min, Seong-Jae (2007). “Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement”. Journal of computer-media-
ted communication, v. 12, n. 4, pp. 1369-1387.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00377.x
Mitchell, Amy; Holcomb, Jesse; Weisel, Rachel (2016). State of news media 2016. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/06/state-of-the-news-media-report-2016-final.pdf
Mitchell, Amy; Page, Dana (2014). State of news media 2014. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/05/30142556/state-of-the-news-media-report-
2014-final.pdf
Mitchelstein, Eugenia (2011). “Catharsis and community: Divergent motivations for audience participation in online
newspapers and blogs”. International journal of communication, v. 5, pp. 2014-2034.
https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1080/672
Mouffe, Chantal (2005). On the political (Thinking in action). London: Routledge. ISBN: 978 0 415305211
Mouffe, Chantal (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso. ISBN: 978 1 781681039
Muddiman, Ashley; Stroud, Natalie-Jomini (2017). “News values, cognitive biases, and partisan incivility in comment
sections”. Journal of communication, v. 67, n. 4, pp. 586-609.
Naab, Teresa K.; Sehl, Annika (2017). “Studies of user-generated content: A systematic review”. Journalism, v. 18, n. 10,
pp. 1256-1273.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916673557
Napoli, Philip M. (2009). Navigating producer-consumer convergence: Media policy priorities in the era of user-generated
and user-distributed content. New York: The Donald McGannon Communication Research Center, Fordham University.
https://fordham.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=mcgannon_research
Nerone, John (2009). “The death (and rebirth?) of working-class journalism”. Journalism, v. 10, n. 3, pp. 353-355.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884909102596
Newman, Nic; Dutton, William H.; Blank, Grant (2012). “Social media in the changing ecology of news: The fourth and
fifth estates in Britain”. International journal of internet science, v. 7, n. 1, pp. 6-22.
http://www.ijis.net/ijis7_1/ijis7_1_newman_et_al.pdf
Newman, Nic; Fletcher, Richard; Kalogeropoulos, Antonis; Levy, David A. L.; Nielsen, Rasmus-Kleis (2018). Digital news
report 2018. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/digital-news-report-2018.pdf
Newman, Nic; Fletcher, Richard; Levy, David A. L.; Nielsen, Rasmus-Kleis (2016). Digital news report: 2016. Oxford:
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
http://media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf
Newman, Nic; Levy, David A. L. (2014). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2014. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism.
https://bit.ly/2UueF7x
Nielsen, Rasmus-Kleis; Schrøder, Kim-Christian (2014). “The relative importance of social media for accessing, finding,
and engaging with news”. Digital journalism, v. 2, n. 4, pp. 472-489.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2013.872420
Nilsson, Monica-Löfgren; Örnebring, Henrik (2016). “Journalism under threat”. Journalism practice, v. 10, n. 7, pp. 880-
890.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1164614
Nip, Joyce Y. M. (2006). “Exploring the second phase of public journalism”. Journalism studies, v. 7, n. 2, pp. 212-236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500533528
Nisbet, Matthew C.; Scheufele, Dietram A. (2004). “Political talk as a catalyst for online citizenship”. Journalism & mass
communication quarterly, v. 81, n. 4, pp. 877-896.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100410
Norris, Pippa (2000). A virtuous circle. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978 0 521793643
Norris, Pippa (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN:
978 0 511610073
O’Neill, Paul (2007). Curating subjects. Amsterdam: Open Editions. ISBN: 978 0 949004161
O’Sullivan, John; Heinonen, Ari (2008). “Old values, new media. Journalism role perceptions in a changing world”. Jour-
nalism practice, v. 2, n. 3, pp. 357-371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780802281081
Olmstead, Kenny; Mitchell, Ami; Rosenstiel, Tom (2011). Navigating news online: Where people go, how they get there
and what lures them away. Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/legacy/NIELSEN-STUDY-Copy.pdf
Owen, Laura-Hazard (2018). “Here’s a first attempt to quantify the extent of Europe’s fake news problema”. Nieman
Journalism Lab.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/01/heres-a-first-attempt-to-quantify-the-extent-of-europes-fake-news-problem
Oz, Mustafa; Zheng, Pei; Chen, Gina-Masullo (2018). “Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and
deliberative attributes”. New media & society, v. 20, n. 9, pp. 3400-3419.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516
Papacharissi, Zizi (2002). “The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere”. New media & society, v. 4, n. 1, pp. 9-27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244
Papacharissi, Zizi (2004). “Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discus-
sion groups”. New media and society, v. 6, n. 2, pp. 259-283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
Papacharissi, Zizi (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 978 0 745645254
Papacharissi, Zizi (2015a). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN:
978 0 199999736
Papacharissi, Zizi (2015b). “Toward new journalism. Affective news, hybridity, and liminal spaces”. Journalism studies, v.
16, n. 1, pp. 27-40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.890328
Pariser, Eli (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. UK: Penguin. ISBN: 978 0 241 95452 2
Pasquale, Frank (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN: 978 0 674368279
Peacock, Cynthia; Scacco, Joshua M.; Stroud, Natalie-Jomini (2017). “The deliberative influence of comment section
structure”. Journalism, Online first.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917711791
Peterson, Erik; Goel, Sharad; Iyengar, Shanto (2018). “Echo chambers and partisan polarization: Evidence from the 2016
presidential campaign”. Unpublished manuscript.
https://5harad.com/papers/selective-exposure.pdf
Persily, Nathaniel (2017). “Can democracy survive the Internet?”. Journal of democracy, v. 28, n. 2, pp. 63-76.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/article/can-democracy-survive-the-internet
Pharr, Susan J.; Robert D. Putnam (eds.) (2000). Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the Trilateral countries. Prin-
ceton: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978 0 691049243
Picone, Ike; De-Wolf, Ralf; Robijt, Sarie (2016). “Who shares what with whom and why?: News sharing profiles amongst
Flemish news users”. Digital journalism, v. 4, n. 7, pp. 921-932.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1168708
Press, Andrea L.; Livingstone, Sonia (2006). “Taking audience research into the age of new media: Old problems and
new challenges”. In: White, M; Schwoch, J. (eds.) Questions of method in cultural studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
pp. 175-200. ISBN: 978 0 631 22978 0
https://www.academia.edu/29375452/Taking_Audience_Research_into_the_Age_of_New_Media_Old_Problems_
and_New_Challenges
Press, Andrea L.; Williams, Bruce A. (2010). The new media environment: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
ISBN: 978 1 4051 2768 4
Prior, Markus (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and
polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978 0 521675338
Prior, Markus (2013). “Media and political polarization”. Annual review of political science, v. 16, pp. 101-127.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242
Prochazka, Fabian; Weber, Patrick; Schweiger, Wolfgang (2018). “Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on
perceived journalistic quality”. Journalism studies, n. 19, n. 1, pp. 62-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497
Purcell, Kristen; Rainie, Lee; Mitchell, Amy; Rosenstiel, Tom (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer.
Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/03/01/understanding-the-participatory-news-consumer
Quandt, Thorsten (2018). “Dark participation”. Media and communication, v. 6, n. 4, pp. 36-48.
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1519
Quattrociocchi, Walter; Scala, Antonio; Sunstein, Cass R. (2016). Echo chambers on Facebook, 15 pp.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110
Rainie, Lee; Wellman, Barry (2012). Networked. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. ISBN: 978 0 262526166
Rains, Stephen A. (2007). “The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-me-
diated group communication: A test of two competing hypotheses”. Communication research, v. 34, n. 1, pp. 100-125.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206296084
Reader, Bill (2012). “Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of ‘civility’ in regard to anonymous online comments”.
Journalism & mass communication quarterly, v. 89, n. 3, pp. 495-513.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012447923
Reich, Zvi (2011). “User comments: The transformation of participatory space”. In: Singer, Jane B. (eds.). Participatory
journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 96-117. ISBN: 978 1 444
33226 1
Rheingold, Howard (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge MA: Perseus Publishing. ISBN: 978 0
738208619
Richardson, John E.; Stanyer, James (2011). “Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper web-
sites and the exercise of political voice”. Journalism, v. 12, n. 8, pp. 983-1003.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911415974
Robertson, Scott P.; Vatrapu, Ravi K.; Medina, Richard (2010). “Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008
U.S. presidential election”. Information polity, v. 15, n. 1-2, pp. 11-31.
https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2010-0196

https://www.cbs.dk/files/cbs.dk/52815712.pdf
Robinson, Sue (2010) “Traditionalists vs. convergers: Textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist-audience re-
lationship in the commenting policies of online news sites”. Convergence: The international journal of research into new
media technologies, v. 16, n. 1, pp. 125-143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856509347719
Rojas, Hernando (2010). “’Corrective’ actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape
political behaviors”. International journal of public opinion research, v. 22, n. 3, pp. 343-363.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018
Rosengard, Dana; Tucker-McLaughlin, Mary; Brown, Tim (2014). “Students and social news: How college students share
news through social media”. Electronic news, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 120-137.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243114546448
Rowe, Ian (2014). “Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion”. Information, communi-
cation & society, v. 18, n. 2, pp. 121-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
Rowe, Ian (2015). “Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platfor-
ms”. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, v. 59, n. 4, pp. 539-555.
https//doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482
Rudat, Anja; Buder, Jürgen; Hesse, Friedrich W. (2014). “Audience design in Twitter: Retweeting behavior between in-
formational value and followers’ interests”. Computers in human behavior, v. 35, pp. 132-139.
Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Domingo, David; Micó-Sanz, Josep-Lluís; Díaz-Noci, Javier; Meso, Koldo; Masip, Pere (2011).
“Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers”. International journal of press/
politics, v. 16, n. 4, pp. 463-487.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849
Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos; Masip, Pere; Micó-Sanz, Josep-Lluís; Díaz-Noci, Javier; Domingo, David (2010). “Conversation
2.0. and democracy. An analysis of reader’s comments in Catalan online newspapers”. Communication and society, v. 23,
n. 2, pp. 7-39.
https://www.unav.es/fcom/communication-society/en/resumen.php?art_id=360
Rutherford, Jennifer (2003). “Zombie categories: Interview with Ulrich Beck”. In: Beck, Ulrich; Beck-Gernsheim, Elisbeth.
Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage, pp. 202-213.
ISBN: 978 0 761961123
Santana, Arthur D. (2011). “Online readers’ comments represent new opinion pipeline”. Newspaper research journal, v.
32, n. 3, pp. 66-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073953291103200306
Santana, Arthur D. (2013). “Virtuous or vitriolic. The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment
boards” Journalism practice, v. 8, n. 1, pp. 18-33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
Santana, Arthur D. (2014). “Controlling the conversation”. Journalism studies, v. 17, n. 2, pp. 141-158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.972076
Sartori, Giovanni (1998). Homo videns. Madrid: Taurus. ISBN: 978 84 66342513
Schäfer, Mike S. (2015). “Digital public sphere”. In: Mazzoleni, G. et al. (eds.). The international encyclopedia of political
communication. London: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 322-328.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc087
Schmidt, Jan-Hinrik (2014). “Twitter and the rise of personal publics”. In: Weller, Katrin et al. (eds.). Twitter & society.
New York: Peter Lang, pp. 3-14. ISBN: 978 1 4331 2169 2
https://bit.ly/2F0bfV6
Schrøder, Kim-Christian (2013). “From dogmatism to open-mindedness? Historical reflections on methods in audience
reception research”. The communication review, v. 16, n. 1-2, pp. 40-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2013.757485
Schrøder, Kim-Christian (2015). “News media old and new”. Journalism studies, v. 16, n. 1, pp. 60-78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.890332
Schrøder, Kim-Christian; Drotner, Kristen; Kline, Stephen; Murray, Catherine (2003). Researching audiences. A practical

guide to methods in media audience analysis. London: Arnold. ISBN: 978 0 340762745
Schwering, Markus (2014). “Internet and public sphere. What the web can’t do. Jürgen Habermas interviewed by Mar-
kus Schwering”. Interview published in the “feulleton” of the Frankfurter Rundschau, 14/15 June.
https://www.resetdoc.org/story/internet-and-public-sphere-what-the-web-cant-do
Sherrick, Brett; Hoewe, Jennifer (2018). “The effect of explicit online comment moderation on three spiral of silence
outcomes”. New media & society, v. 20, n. 2, pp. 453-474.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816662477
Shoemaker, Pamela; Vos, Tim P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978 0 415981385
Singer, Jane B. (2008). “Online journalists. Foundations for research into their changing roles”. Journal of computer-me-
diated communication, v. 4, n. 1.
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue1/singer.html
Singer, Jane B. (2010). “Quality control: Perceived effects of user-generated content on newsroom norms, values and
routines” Journalism practice, v. 4, n. 2, pp. 127-142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780903391979
Singer, Jane B. (2014). “User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space”. New media & society,
v. 16, n. 1, pp. 55-73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813477833
Singer, Jane B.; Domingo, David; Heinonen, Ari; Hermida, Alfred; Paulussen, Steve; Quandt, Thorsten; Reich, Zvi; Vu-
jnovic, Marina (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
ISBN: 978 1 444 33226 1
Soffer, Oren; Gordoni, Galit (2017). “Opinion expression via user comments on news websites: Analysis through the
perspective of the spiral of silence”. Information, communication and society, v. 21, n. 3, pp. 388-403.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281991
Sparks, Colin; Tulloch, John (2000). Tabloid tales. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN: 978 0 847695720
Springer, Nina; Engelmann, Ines; Pfaffinger, Christian (2015). “User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and
read”. Information, communication and society, v. 18, n. 7, pp. 798-815.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268
Steiner, George (2004). La idea d’Europa. Barcelona: Arcàdia. ISBN: 978 84 93409609
Steinfeld, Nili; Samuel-Azran, Tal; Lev-On, Azi (2016). “User comments and public opinion: Findings from an eye-trac-
king experiment”. Computers in human behavior, v. 61, pp. 63-72.
Stelter, Brian (2008). “Finding political news online, the young pass it on”. The New York Times, March 27th.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27voters.html
Stieglitz, Stefan; Dang-Xuan, Linh (2013). “Emotions and information diffusion in social media - Sentiment of microblogs
and sharing behavior”. Journal of management information systems, v. 29, n. 4, pp. 217-248.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
Stroud, Natalie-Jomini (2010) “Polarization and partisan selective exposure”. Journal of communication, v. 60, n. 3, pp.
556-576.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
Stroud, Natalie-Jomini; Muddiman, Ashley; Scacco, Joshua M. (2016). “Like, recommend, or respect? Altering political
behavior in news comment sections”. New media & society, v. 19, n. 11, pp. 1727-1743.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816642420
Stroud, Natalie-Jomini; Scacco, Joshua M.; Muddiman, Ashley; Curry, Alexander L. (2014). “Changing deliberative nor-
ms on news organizations’ Facebook sites”. Journal of computer-mediated communication, v. 20, n. 2, pp. 188-203.
Suau, Jaume (2015). Citizens and online media participation. Attitudes and motivations towards participatory journalism
and other online practices in London and Barcelona. PhD thesis. Barcelona, University Ramon Llull.
Suau, Jaume; Masip, Pere (2014). “Exploring participatory journalism in mediterranean countries”. Journalism practice,
v. 8, n. 6, pp. 670-687.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.865964
Suau, Jaume; Masip, Pere; Ruiz-Caballero, Carlos (2019) (forthcoming). “Missing the big wave: Citizens’ discourses

against the participatory formats adopted by news media”. Journalism practice.

Sujin, Choi; Ji-young, Park; Woo, Park-Han (2012). “Using social media data to explore communication processes within
South Korean online innovation communities”. Scientometrics, v. 90, n. 1, pp. 43-56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0514-7
Suler, John (2004). “The online disinhibition effect”. Cyberpsychology & behavior, v. 7, n. 3, pp. 321-326.
https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
Sunstein, Cass R. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978 0 691070254
Sunstein, Cass R. (2001). Republic 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978 0 691143286
Sunstein, Cass R. (2017). #Republic. Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princton: Princeton University Press.
ISBN: 978 1 400890521
Tarde, Gabriel (1969). “The public and the crowd”. In: Clark, Terry (ed.) Communication and social influence. Chicago:
University of Chicago, pp. 277-296. ISBN: 978 1 941626047
Tenenboim, Ori; Cohen, Akiba A. (2015). “What prompts users to click and comment: A longitudinal study of online
news”. Journalism, v. 16, n. 2, pp. 198-217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913513996
Tewksburg, David; Rittenberg, Jason (2012). News on the Internet: Information and citizenship in the 21st century -
Oxford studies in digital politics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978 0 195391978
Tewksbury, David; Weaver, Andrew J.; Maddex, Brett D. (2001). “Accidentally informed: incidental news exposure on
the world wide web”. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, v. 78, n. 3, pp. 533-554.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800309
Thorsen, Einar (2013). “Live blogging and social media curation: Challenges and opportunities for journalism”. In: Fowler-
Walt, K.; Allan, S. (eds.). Journalism: New challenges. Poole, UK: Centre for Journalism & Communication Research. Bour-
nemouth University, pp. 123-145. ISBN: 978 1 910042 01 4
Thrall, A. Trevor; Berent, Jon; Donnelly, Lana; Herrin, Wes; Paquette, Zachary; Wenglinski, Rebecca; Wyatt, Amy (2008).
“Star power: Celebrity advocacy and the evolution of the public sphere”. The international journal of press/politics, v.
13, n. 4, pp. 362-385.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208319098
Thurman, Neil (2008). “Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news
media”. New media & society, v. 10, n. 1, pp. 139-157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807085325
Tolbert, Caroline J.; Mcneal, Ramona S. (2003). “Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation?”. Poli-
tical research quarterly, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 175-185.
https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600206
Trilling, Damian; Van-Klingeren, Marijn; Tsfati, Yariv (2016). “Selective exposure, political polarization, and possible
mediators: Evidence from the Netherlands”. International journal of public opinion research, v. 29, n. 2, pp. 189-213.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw003
Usher, Nikki (2017). “The appropriation / amplification model of citizen journalism: An account of structural limitations
and the political economy of participatory content creation”. Journalism practice, v. 11, n. 2-3, pp. 247-265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1223552
Valenzuela, Sebastián; Piña, Martina; Ramírez, Josefina (2017). “Behavioral effects of framing on social media users:
How conflict, economic, human interest, and morality frames drive news sharing”. Journal of communication, v. 67, n.
5, pp. 803-826.
Van-Dijck, José; Nieborg, David (2009). “Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of web 2.0 business manifes-
tos”. New media & society, v. 11, n. 5, pp. 855-874.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105356
Van-Dijck, José; Poell, Thomas (2013). “Understanding social media logic”. Media and communication, v. 1, n. 1, pp.
2-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70
Van-Zoonen, Liesbet (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Oxford: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers. ISBN: 978 0 742529076

Vergeer, Maurice; Hermans, Liesbeth; Sams, Steven (2011). “Online social networks and micro-blogging in political
campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style”. Party politics, v. 19, n. 3, pp. 477-501.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811407580
Villi, Mikko (2012). “Social curation in audience communities: UDC (user-distributed content) in the networked media
ecosystem”. Participations, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 614-632.
http://www.participations.org/Volume%209/Issue%202/33%20Villi.pdf
Vos, Tim P.; Heinderyckx, François (eds.). (2015). Gatekeeping in transition. New York: Routledge Press. ISBN: 978 1
317910527
Vujnovic, Marina; Singer, Jane B.; Paulussen, Steve; Heinonen, Ari; Reich, Zvi; Quandt, Thorsten; Hermida, Alfred;
Domingo, David (2010). “Exploring the political-economic factors of participatory journalism”. Journalism practice, v. 4,
n. 3, pp. 285-296.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17512781003640588
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin; Hanitzsch, Thomas (2009). “Introduction: On why and how we should do journalism studies”.
In: Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin; Hanitzsch, Thomas (eds.). The handbook of journalism studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 3-17.
ISBN: 978 0 8058 6343 7
https://keralamediaacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Handbook-of-Journalism-Studies.pdf
Weber, Lori M.; Loumakis, Alysha; Bergman, James (2003). “Who participates and why?: An analysis of citizens on the
internet and the mass public”. Social science computer review, v. 21, n. 1, pp. 26-42.
https://doi.org/10.117/0894439302238969
Weber, Patrick (2014). “Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online
newspapers’ reader comments”. New media & society, v. 16, n. 6, pp. 941-957.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495165
Webster, Frank (2013). “What’s the use of the public sphere in the age of the internet?”. In: Lee, Francis L.F. et al. (eds.).
Frontiers in new media research. New York: Routledge, pp. 19-38. ISBN: 978 1 136286858
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203113417
Webster, James G. (2007). “Diversity of exposure”. In: P. M. Napoli (ed.). Media diversity and localism: Meaning and
metrics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 309-326.
http://webster.soc.northwestern.edu/pubs/Webster%20%282007%29%20Diversity%20of%20Exposue.pdf
Webster, James G. (2010). “User information regimes: How social media shape patterns of consumption”. Northwestern
University law review, v. 104, n. 2, pp. 593-612.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279717654_User_information_regimes_How_social_media_shape_patter-
ns_of_consumption
Webster, James G. (2011). “The duality of media: A structurational theory of public attention”. Communication theory,
v. 21, n. 1, pp. 43-66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01375.x
Webster, James G.; Ksiazek, Thomas B. (2012). “The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of
digital media”. Journal of communication, v. 62, n. 1, pp. 39-56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x
Williams, Bruce A.; Delli-Carpini, Michael X. (2011). After broadcast news. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN: 978 0 511846366
Winter, Stephan; Krämer, Nicole C. (2016). “Who’s right: The author or the audience? Effects of user comments and
ratings on the perception of online science articles”. Communications, v. 41, n. 3, pp. 339-360.
https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0008
Wise, Kevin; Hamman, Brian; Thorson, Kjerstin (2006). “Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features
of online communities and their effects on intent to participate”. Journal of computer-mediated communication, v. 12,
n. 1, pp. 24-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x
Wright, Scott; Street, John (2007). “Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums”. New
media & society, v. 9, n. 5, pp. 849-869.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081230
Wu, Shaomei; Hofman, Jake M.; Mason, Winter A.; Watts, Duncan (2011). “Who says what to whom on Twitter”. In:
Proceedings of the 20th Intl conf on world wide web - WWW’11, p. 705.

http://www.wwwconference.org/proceedings/www2011/proceedings/p705.pdf
Wu, Tai-Yee; Atkin, David J. (2018). “To comment or not to comment: Examining the influences of anonymity and social
support on one’s willingness to express in online news discussions”. New media and society, v. 20, n. 12, pp. 4512-4532.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818776629
Yang, Shu-Chen; Chang, Wei-Ting; Hsiao, Yi-Ting; Chen, Bo-Yu (2014). “The effects of perceived value on Facebook post
sharing intention”. In: Procs of the 12th Intl conf on advances in mobile computing and multimedia.
Yardi, Sarita; Boyd, Dana (2010). “Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter”. Bulletin of
science, technology & society, v. 30, n. 5, pp. 316-327.
https://www.danah.org/papers/2010/BSTS-TwitterPolarization.pdf
Zamith, Rodrigo; Lewis, Seth C. (2014). “From public spaces to public sphere”. Digital journalism, v. 2, n. 4, pp. 558-574.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.882066
Zhou, Xiang; Chan, Yuen-Ying; Peng, Zhen-Mei (2008). “Deliberativeness of online political discussion: A content analy-
sis of the Guangzhou Daily website”. Journalism studies, v. 9, n. 5, pp. 759-770.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802207771
Zhou, Zicong; Bandari, Roja; Kong, Joseph; Qian, Hai; Roychowdhury, Vwani (2010). “Information resonance on Twit-
ter: Watching Iran”. Procs of the First workshop on social media analytics - SOMA’10, pp. 123-131.
http://snap.stanford.edu/soma2010/papers/soma2010_17.pdf
Ziegele, Marc; Johnen, Marius; Bickler, Andreas; Jakob, Ilka; Setzer, Till; Schnauber, Alexandra (2013). “Male, hale,
comments? Factors influencing the activity of commenting users on online news websites”. Studies in Communication
and Media, v. 2, n. 1, pp. 110-114.
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2013-1-67
Ziegele, Marc; Springer, Nina; Jost, Pablo; Wright, Scott (2017). “Online user comments across news and other content
formats: multidisciplinary perspectives, new directions”. Studies in communication and media, v. 6, n. 4, pp. 315-332.
https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
Ziegele, Marc; Weber, Mathias; Quiring, Oliver; Breiner, Timo (2018). “The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects
of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contri-
butions”. Information, communication and society, v. 21, n. 10, pp. 1419-1435.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505
Zillmann, Dolf; Bryant, Jennings (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN:
978 0 898595857
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/selective_exposure-wiki.pdf
La Fundación Biblioteca Social es una

institución sin ánimo de lucro que se Gltn
constituyó en el año 2014. Tiene como
A �a
o o
Ovledo
objetivo contribuir a compensar los

desequilibrios sociales apoyando
proyectos que llevan a cabo las Zara�oza
Ba
bibliotecas públicas, dirigidos a los Tarragona
sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad. Q

,,..
Toledo
o
' Castellón
de la Plana
o
Valencia
Sparn Pa
¿Colaboras?
Benidorm
o
o
Alicante
�u�cia
fundacionbibliotecasocial.org Granada
o
[email protected] Almería
.,;1
Cl
QProyectos recibidos o
@Biblio_Social
IJ
QProyectos finalistas
FundacionBibliotecasSocial QProyectos ganadores Gibraltar
Mapa de proyectos de bibliotecas públicas para la inclusión social. 2016.

Active Audiences and Social Discussion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active Audiences and Social Discussion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active Audiences and Social Discussion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active audiences and social discussion

on the digital public sphere.

Nota: Este artículo se puede leer en español en:

How to cite this article:

Pere Masip * Carlos Ruiz-Caballero

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 1

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 2

the audience (Bruns; Highfield,

2. Internet and the transformation of the public sphere

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 3

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 4

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 5

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 6

3. The new citizenship

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 7

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 8

4. The impact of social networks

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 9

characterised the era of information as an ‘economy of

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 10

5. Digital deliberation: from Habermas to Zuckerberg

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 11

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 12

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 13

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 14

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 15

6. New news consumption practices

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 16

7. ‘News sharing’: dismantling the ‘gatekeeper’

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 17

8. Sharing, between selfishness and altruism

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 18

9. ‘Echo-chambers’ and selective exposure: pluralism threatened

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 19

10. Bursting the bubble

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 20

11. Final considerations, concerning Dewey

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 21

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 22

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 23

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 24

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 25

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 26

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 27

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 28

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 29

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 30

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 31

puters in human behavior, v. 28, n. 2, pp. 331-339.

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 32

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 33

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 34

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 35

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 36

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 37

against the participatory formats adopted by news media”. Journalism practice.

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-24077 38

Littlefield Publishers. ISBN: 978 0 742529076

e280204 El profesional de la información, 2019, v. 28, n. 2. eISSN: 1699-2407 39